[Senate Hearing 109-1110]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1110
NASA: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 25, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-139 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
CONRAD BURNS, Montana JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 25, 2006................................... 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 23
Statement of Senator Hutchison................................... 1
Statement of Senator Bill Nelson................................. 2
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Witnesses
Griffin, Hon. Dr. Michael D., Administrator, NASA................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey
Hutchison to Hon. Dr. Michael D. Griffin....................... 37
NASA: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Science and Space,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Kay Bailey
Hutchison, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Hutchison. Our meeting will come to order.
This is the Science and Space Subcommittee hearing that we
have called to hear the Administrator of NASA talk about the
issues and challenges, and hopefully begin to focus on the NASA
authorization bill that we passed.
I am very pleased that so much has been accomplished since
Dr. Griffin became Administrator. I'm especially pleased that
your approach is largely that which Congress is supporting in
the NASA authorization bill that was originated by this
committee and enacted by Congress.
The President's budget request for NASA is a 3.2 percent
increase over the 2006 budget. However, of course, the total
funding requested for NASA is $1.1 billion less for 2007 than
the amount authorized by our legislation in Congress. We don't
always get full authorization amounts, and I know we're going
to hear from you today, Administrator Griffin, about how the
money will be used.
However, the authorization bill was very careful in
accelerating the Crew Exploration Vehicle, but also ensuring
sufficient funding to return the Space Shuttle to flight and
complete the International Space Station. What is concerning to
me is that the President's budget request is creating a
situation in which the Vision for Exploration and the
acceleration of the CEV could do away with many of the other
priorities that I think we share. And I don't want that to
happen.
Beyond continuing to urge an expanded total funding level
for NASA, I have also asked, in the authorization bill, that
you seek ways to find funding from other sources. We certainly
opened that opportunity by creating the International Space
Station as a national lab, the U.S. part of it, and by asking
you to work with the Department of Defense to see where we
could share the aeronautics budget, instead of duplicating it.
And I hope that we will be able to talk a little bit more about
that.
I am very, very hopeful that NASA will become a part of the
President's Competitive Initiative that he announced in his
State of the Union in January. While we are doubling the
funding of the National Science Foundation for basic science
research, I believe NASA has a role to play, because I think,
with the International Space Station and the research
capabilities that we have, that NASA's basic sciences should be
part of that competitiveness initiative. And, therefore, I'm
hoping that we can expand NASA's research partnerships to
include the National Science Foundation.
I think we all are in agreement--you, Administrator
Griffin, and our Committee--that we have a challenge that must
be met. America must stay in the forefront of space exploration
and the science initiatives that can go with that. You have a
very difficult job. We understand that and appreciate it. We're
asking you to create the Crew Return Vehicle. We're asking you
to complete the Space Station, and we're asking you to get the
Shuttle up there to do it, despite the problems that we saw in
the last Shuttle. And we're asking you to stick with the basic
science research that is so important for our future
competitiveness.
So, I know it's a big job, and I hope that you have the
tools to do it by adding other contributors and cooperating
with other agencies so that everything doesn't have to come out
of NASA's hide.
So, I thank you for being here today and working with us. I
certainly enjoyed being at the 25th anniversary of the first
Shuttle with you, in Houston. It was a wonderful event. Senator
Nelson, you would have loved it, too. And I think that it just
showed how far we've come and how important it is that we stay
the course.
Thank you.
And now, I would like to call on my Ranking Member, Senator
Nelson, our Senate's only actual spaceflight semi-astronaut.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Mr. Nelson. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.
And, Dr. Griffin, welcome. It's really good to have someone
of your stature as the leader of our country's space program. I
am grateful for your public service, particularly at such a
difficult time for NASA. It's good that someone is at the helm,
leading, allocating dollars, making decisions, sometimes under
severe time pressure. But the consequences of your decisions,
and the consequences of our decisions in trying to assist you,
are going to be enormous in how so much of America is going to
be affected in the future. When I was a boy growing up in the
shadow of the Cape, we knew all of the early astronauts' names.
It, of course, was during the Cold War; and so, we had,
clearly, a national mission in our competitiveness with the
Soviet Union. But, by the decisions that were made, and by the
leadership that was offered at that time--first, by a President
who said, ``We're going to the moon and return, in 9 years,''
backed up with an Administrator of NASA, Jim Webb, who had a
singular purpose, and that was to bring all the resources to
bear. We did it. What was so remarkable was--not only the
spinoffs, which we often forget, that came out of the space
program. When you build something that is to be highly
reliable, that is light in weight and small in volume, and the
technological revolution in microminiaturization that came from
that. It also had a phenomenal impact on the education system
of this country. Suddenly kids were interested in going into
math and science and engineering. And, of course, you know the
statistics today, just from a quantity standpoint, of the
greater number of engineers that are being produced in China
and in India than in America. That worries me for the future
not only for us to be globally competitive, but also to be the
technological leader in this global competition.
And so, I merely give you an additional charge, which is,
in leading our space program, there's a lot more to what
Senator Hutchison has so eloquently stated, the necessity of
completing that International Space Station and keeping the gap
between the CEV and the retirement of the Shuttle at a minimum,
and protecting the workforce, a workforce that is very
experienced, that you don't want to lose all that corporate
memory. There's even a greater goal, and that is to reignite
the imagination of the American people, and especially its
young people, to want to be involved in technological matters,
because that will carry us into continued leadership in the
global competition.
So, thank you, Madam Chairman, for this opportunity to make
a statement.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
Administrator Griffin?
STATEMENT OF HON. DR. MICHAEL D. GRIFFIN, ADMINISTRATOR, NASA
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator Hutchison, Senator Nelson,
members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate your inviting me here
to discuss NASA's Fiscal Year 2007 budget request and our
progress in carrying out our mission of space exploration--let
me interrupt to say thank you for--thank you for being here,
sir--our progress in carrying out our mission in space
exploration, scientific discovery in aeronautics research
within the resources provided.
NASA carries out this Nation's greatest technical
challenges, and we cannot do it alone. We need the help of the
Congress. So, let me begin by thanking this committee, and
especially Senator Hutchison and Senator Nelson, for your
leadership in shepherding through Congress the NASA
Authorization Act of 2005. This was a landmark piece of
legislation for NASA, and I am profoundly grateful to the
Congress for the passage of this visionary Act.
The national priorities articulated in the Authorization
Act are a lasting legacy to the crew of the Space Shuttle
Columbia and a testament to the leadership in both the White
House and Congress who realized in the aftermath of the
Columbia tragedy that while our national goals for space
exploration must fulfill existing commitments to the
International Space Station, we must also commit ourselves to
new, bolder journeys to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. I have a
copy of that Act hanging on the wall just outside my office at
NASA. This endorsement by the Congress of the Vision for Space
Exploration will help to sustain this long journey over the
years and decades.
But our wishes alone do not make this Act a reality. The
NASA Authorization Act sets clear and achievable goals, but, I
must be honest with you, these goals are difficult and not
without risk. We have a lot of hard work before us, and we need
the help of the Congress and of this committee to achieve them.
For that reason, I ask for your specific help as we try to
address each of the 50 or so reporting requirements also
specified in the Act. You have my pledge to keep this committee
fully informed. But the reports for which you have asked must
be consistent with what we know technically at the time of the
report, as well as the best cost estimates we have at that
time. Further, NASA is in source selection on the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV), and we must maintain the integrity
of that process with respect to the reports that we do provide.
The other area where I need the help and understanding of
this committee is in realizing how much has changed in the
years following the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Put
simply, the Columbia accident in 2003 profoundly changed the
course of our Nation's space program, and it profoundly
impacted NASA's ability to carry out plans for the
International Space Station (ISS), which preceded the accident.
We still need to make sure that we can control foam shedding
from the Space Shuttle's external tank. We still need to
develop a robust space transportation capability to ferry
astronauts and cargo to the Space Station and from there onward
to our next milestones, the Moon, Mars, and near-Earth
asteroids. For this reason, I need your support in bringing the
Crew Exploration and Launch Vehicles online not later than
2014, and possibly sooner.
We also need your support for our effort to leverage the
capabilities of commercial industry to demonstrate potentially
cheaper means to deliver cargo, and, later, crew, to the
International Space Station. After successful demonstrations,
NASA hopes to established arms-length commercial transactions
for delivery service to the ISS.
While the primary emphasis of NASA's research on the Space
Station is to prepare for future missions to the Moon, Mars,
and beyond, NASA is conducting a certain amount of research,
along with our government and commercial partners, for other
scientific benefits. However, Senator Hutchison, as we've
discussed with you and your staff, it can be difficult to
divide research according to sharply defined exploration and
non-exploration purposes. But, having said that, I've reviewed
NASA's research plans, and I believe we're fully complying with
the NASA Authorization Act's requirements as to the funding
specified for non-exploration ISS research. We're also making
plans to solicit additional partnerships with other government
agencies and the commercial sector to conduct research onboard
the Space Station.
But, let me be clear, we can only realize the potential of
the Space Station if we have a robust space transportation
capability to ferry crew, experiments, and equipment to and
from the Station. Our emphasis over the next 5 years should be
to assemble the Station with the Shuttle while working
aggressively to develop these new space transportation
capabilities.
While the NASA Authorization Act sets clear goals for the
entire Agency, we simply can't afford to do everything that our
many constituencies would like us to do. I am truly sorry that
this is so, but it is a fact. We must strike a careful and
appropriate balance of resources in NASA's budget consistent
with the priorities specified. NASA carries out all of its
missions--space exploration, science, and aeronautics
research--with a go-as-you-can-afford-to-pay approach. NASA's
topline request of $16.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2007 is roughly
six-tenths of a percent of the overall Federal budget. By
comparison, NASA's budget at the height of the Apollo program,
including science and aeronautics research, represented 4.4
percent of Federal outlays. In terms of workforce at the height
of the Apollo program, NASA employed over 400,000 contractors,
civil servants, scientists, technicians, and engineers. Today,
NASA employs approximately 75,000 people on its various
programs.
I'm not trying to be nostalgic for the past in pointing out
these facts; I'm trying to be realistic. NASA can't do
everything on its plate, but we can be guided by, and we can
implement, the key priorities specified by the Congress and the
White House and as informed by the scientific community.
For many reasons, friends of mine who worked for NASA or in
industry during the Apollo era, and who helped bring the
Shuttle online 25 years ago, have called the next decade for
NASA the greatest technical and management challenge the Agency
has faced. I believe they are right. Fulfilling our commitments
with the International Space Station, retiring the Shuttle by
2010, developing the Crew Exploration and Launch Vehicles to
carry out missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond, are goals as
challenging as those NASA faced two generations ago.
At the same time, we're also making plans for a Shuttle
servicing mission to Hubble and building our Nation's next
great observatory, the James Webb Space Telescope. We're
conducting our stewardship of the Nation's Earth science
research with satellites like the soon-to-be-launched Cloudsat
and CALIPSO, which are currently on the pad at Vandenberg, and
we're also building the next Mars robotic landers and
laboratories. NASA's science program still remains one of our
Nation's greatest achievements. But in view of our fiscal
constraints, we must defer some missions that we would prefer
to do now, but simply can't afford at this time. We will
continue to maintain a robust portfolio of missions and
research within the $5.33 billion budget requested for the
Science Mission Directorate in Fiscal Year 2007.
In aeronautics research, NASA is developing a national
policy and a plan with the White House and other Federal
agencies, including DOD and FAA, which dedicates us to the
mastery and intellectual stewardship of the core competencies
of aeronautics in all flight regimes. This plan will focus our
research efforts on those areas appropriate to NASA's unique
capabilities. We hope to provide this plan, which will inform
future budget resource decisions to the Congress by December.
Let me speak plainly to the Agency's greatest challenge,
transitioning from the Space Shuttle to the Crew Exploration
Vehicle. The most important strategic decision we made last
year was to use a Shuttle-derived launch architecture. And I
want to thank you for endorsing that approach in the
Authorization Act. Next, we're addressing the workforce, launch
infrastructure, contracting, and affordability issues in the
weeks, months, and years ahead. We have a lot of work to do.
To be clear, NASA will not need as many engineers and
technicians on the shop floor to operate and maintain the CEV
and Crew Launch Vehicles (CLV) as we do today with the Space
Shuttle. The CEV and CLV are designed to be simpler and cheaper
to operate than the Shuttle. For this reason, many of our
highly specialized human spaceflight engineers and technicians
will need to transition to projects such as commercial crew/
cargo transport services, heavy-lift launch vehicle
development, and the Lunar Lander. Change is hard. But if we
don't act now to bring it about, we will not develop the space
program that we want to have.
I recall firsthand the damage suffered by our Nation's
space program by the unintended loss of critical expertise
during the gap between Apollo and the Shuttle, between 1975 and
1981. When major cutbacks occurred in NASA operations in the
early 1970s, the area around Kennedy Space Center suffered
greatly, with 13 percent unemployment, and over 1,000
repossessed homes as former Apollo workers walked away from
homes for which there was no one to buy. The expertise we lost
in this era was never regained.
We must not repeat these mistakes of the 1970s as we
proceed to retire the Shuttle and transition to the Crew
Exploration Vehicle. This must be a safe and orderly
transition. We have our work cut out for us in flying the
Shuttle until 2010 to complete the Space Station and to effect
this transition. We will need the help of Congress during this
critical time. You can expect to see more from us on our
transition plans in the months and years ahead.
This year, in addition to dealing with foam shedding from
the external tank, the Space Shuttle program is also recovering
from damage by Hurricane Katrina, to the Michoud Assembly
Facility in Louisiana, and Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.
I want to thank members of this committee for their support for
NASA in these trying times. We're asking for Congress's help in
the Administration's emergency supplemental request. We're
asking the Congress to provide NASA with the flexibility--not
new money in appropriations, but the flexibility to move up to
$50 million to pay back the Space Shuttle and Space Station
accounts, which were used to pay for Katrina recovery efforts
last fall. As we make a more complete assessment of the
recovery and repair costs from the hurricane, we will keep the
Committee informed of our plans and how we would use this
flexibility. I look forward to working with you to address that
issue.
In conclusion, Senator Hutchison, Senator Nelson, Senator
Stevens, Members of the Committee, our Nation has a long
journey ahead of us, just as was the case for explorers and
scientists throughout history. I would like to leave you with
the following thought before taking your questions. Imagine, if
you will, a world of some future time, whether 2020, 2040, or
whenever, when some other nations or alliances are capable of
reaching and exploring the Moon or voyaging to Mars, and the
United States cannot, and does not. Is it even conceivable
that, in such a world, America would still be regarded as a
leader among nations, never mind ``the leader''? And, if not,
what might be the consequences of this for the global balance
of economic and strategic power? Are we willing to accept those
consequences?
In the end, these are the considerations at stake when we
decide, as Americans, upon the goals we set for, and the
resources we allocate to, our civil space program. I believe
that the NASA Authorization Act answers these questions with a
balanced set of goals that America seeks from its space
program. And now we must implement those goals.
Thank you for you consideration and your leadership in
helping to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Griffin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dr. Michael D. Griffin, Administrator, NASA
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to appear today to discuss NASA's plans as represented in
the President's FY 2007 budget request for NASA. I will outline the
highlights of our budget request and discuss the strategic direction
for NASA in implementing the priorities of the President and Congress
within the resources provided. The President's FY 2007 budget request
for NASA of $16,792 million demonstrates his commitment to the Vision
for Space Exploration and our Nation's commitment to our partners on
the International Space Station. The FY 2007 budget request is a 3.2
percent increase above NASA's FY 2006 appropriation, not including the
$349.8 million emergency supplemental for NASA's recovery and
restoration efforts following Hurricane Katrina. However, let me put
NASA's budget into perspective. NASA's budget is roughly 0.7 percent of
the overall Federal budget. This is a prudent investment to extend the
frontiers of space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics
research. With it, we enhance American leadership, our safety and
security, and our global economic competitiveness through the
technological innovations stemming from our space and aeronautics
research programs. Our Nation can afford this investment in NASA.
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced the Vision
for Space Exploration to advance U.S. scientific, security, and
economic interests through a robust space exploration program. NASA is
grateful to the Congress for endorsing this Vision last December in the
NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-155) and providing guidance
and expectations for us in carrying out the Agency's missions of space
exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. NASA is
also appreciative of the action by the Committees on Appropriations and
Congress in providing regular FY 2006 appropriations for the Agency
totaling $16,456.8 million--essentially the level of the President's FY
2006 request before application of rescissions--including a strong
endorsement for the Vision for Space Exploration, timely development of
the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) and
support for NASA's other core programs. To that end, NASA is
implementing the priorities of the President and Congress within the
resources available. NASA carries out its missions with a ``go as you
can afford to pay'' approach where we assume NASA's top line budget
will grow at the moderate rate laid out in the President's 2007 budget
request. NASA's Strategic Plan and FY 2007 Congressional Budget
Justification, provided to the Congress in February, reflect those
priorities and describe how NASA is implementing those policies into
practice by describing our programs, projected resources, and workforce
needs.
As part of his FY 2007 budget request to Congress, the President
proposed the American Competitiveness Initiative, or ACI, to encourage
American innovation and strengthen our Nation's ability to compete in
the global economy. Many have asked why NASA is not a part of the ACI.
My response is that it is the mission of NASA to pioneer the future of
space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research,
while the ACI is focused on bolstering the Nation's economic
competitiveness in areas such as information technology and
nanotechnology. NASA contributes to the Nation's competitiveness
through all of the cutting-edge exploration, science, and aeronautics
investments accomplished by our Mission Directorates. As part of the
President's Vision for Space Exploration, NASA expects to spawn entire
new industries in this Nation. Furthermore, NASA's education and
training initiatives are designed to enhance math and science
education, as well as to provide research opportunities at the
university level. We are currently reviewing our portfolio of education
programs to assess opportunities for potential collaboration at the
invitation of the Department of Education, National Science Foundation,
and other Federal agencies. NASA can offer opportunities and
inspiration to students as no one else can. For example, a University
of Colorado--Boulder student-built experiment on the New Horizons
mission is currently being activated and will be operated by university
students all the way to Pluto and beyond.
Implementing the Vision
Later this year, NASA will continue the assembly of the
International Space Station (ISS) with the minimum number of Space
Shuttle flights necessary to fulfill our commitments to our
international partners before the Space Shuttle's retirement in 2010.
The commitment of resources in the President's budget has shown our
international partners that NASA and the United States are good
partners through thick and thin and this commitment will encourage them
to team with us in future endeavors of space exploration and scientific
discovery. NASA has consulted with our international partners on the
configuration of the ISS, and is working closely with them to determine
the crew size and logistics necessary during this assembly period as
well as the period following the retirement of the Space Shuttle. The
heads of space agencies from Canada, Europe, Japan, Russia and the
United States met at Kennedy Space Center on March 2, 2006, to review
ISS cooperation and endorse a revision to the ISS configuration and
assembly sequence. The partners reaffirmed their agencies' commitment
to meet their mutual obligations, to implement six person crew
operations in 2009, and to conduct an adequate number of Space Shuttle
flights to complete the assembly of ISS by the end of the decade. The
partners also affirmed their plans to use a combination of
transportation systems provided by Europe, Japan, Russia, and the
United States in order to complete ISS assembly in a timeframe that
meets the needs of the partners and to ensure full utilization of the
unique capabilities of the ISS throughout its lifetime. The FY 2007
budget request provides the necessary resources to purchase Soyuz crew
transport and rescue for U.S. astronauts as well as needed Progress
vehicle logistics support for the ISS from the Russian Federal Space
Agency. Likewise, the FY 2007 budget request provides necessary funds
for U.S. commercial industry to demonstrate the capability to deliver
cargo and/or crew to the ISS. If such cost-effective commercial
services are successfully demonstrated, NASA will welcome and use them.
The next return to flight test mission, STS-121 commanded by
Colonel Steve Lindsey, will confirm that we can safely return the Space
Shuttle to its primary task of assembling the ISS. We have continued to
reduce the risk associated with the release of foam debris from the
external tank by eliminating the liquid hydrogen and the liquid oxygen
protuberance air load ramps. We are now working toward a July launch,
which is the next available lighted launch window as mandated for STS-
121. The window is open from July 1 through July 19. NASA will launch
when ready. Pending the results of this test flight, I plan to convene
my senior management team for space operations as well as my Chief
Safety and Mission Assurance Officer and my Chief Engineer in order to
determine whether the Space Shuttle can safely conduct a fifth
servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope in 2007-2008. NASA's FY
2007 budget provides the necessary resources to conduct this mission.
In previous budget requests, NASA reported only placeholder budget
estimates for the Space Shuttle for FY 2008-2010. The Agency's
management focus on return to flight efforts of the Space Shuttle
resulted in NASA deferring this analysis until the FY 2007 budget. As I
testified before Congress last year, NASA's estimates of the budget
shortfall required to safely fly out the Space Shuttle with the minimum
number of flights necessary to complete ISS assembly and meet our
international partner commitments were $3-5 billion. With the FY 2007
budget runout, NASA has added $2.4 billion to the Space Shuttle program
and almost $1.5 billion to the International Space Station in FY 2008-
2010 compared to the FY 2006 budget runout. There is no ``new money''
for NASA's top line budget within the budget projections available
given our Nation's other pressing issues, so, working with the White
House, NASA provided sufficient funds for the Space Shuttle and ISS
programs to carry out their missions by redirecting funds from the
Science and Exploration budgets.
There are several strategic implications behind this decision.
Foremost among them is that our Nation will keep its commitment to our
international partners on the ISS. Thus, with limited resources, we
made some difficult decisions. Leadership means setting priorities of
time, energy, and resources, and I have tried to make these decisions
with the best available facts and analysis. The plain fact is that NASA
simply cannot afford to do everything that our many constituencies
would like the Agency to do. We must set priorities, and we must adjust
our spending to match those priorities. NASA needed to reallocate
budgeted funds from the Science and Exploration budget projections for
FY 2007-2011 in order to ensure that enough funds were available to
properly support the Space Shuttle and the ISS. Thus, NASA cannot
afford the costs of starting some new science missions at this time. It
is important to know that NASA is simply delaying missions, not
abandoning them. With the limited resources available, I believe that
fulfilling our commitments on the International Space Station and
bringing the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) online in a timely manner,
not later than 2014 and possibly much sooner, is a higher priority than
these science missions during this period.
There are several reasons not to delay the CEV farther. First and
foremost is increased risk to the Vision due to an extended gap in our
Nation's ability to launch humans into space after we retire the Space
Shuttle in 2010. I experienced first-hand the stagnancy in the
aerospace industry that existed during the gap in human spaceflight
between the end of the Apollo program and the first flight of the Space
Shuttle in 1981, and I know that our Nation's space program suffered
greatly from the unintended loss of critical expertise. Our Nation's
space industrial base withered. A longer gap in U.S. human spaceflight
capabilities will increase risk and overall costs and lead to even more
delays in pursuing the Nation's vision. Equally important, the U.S. may
risk a perceived, if not a real loss of leadership in space
exploration, if we are unable for an extended period to launch our
astronauts into space when other nations are establishing or building
on their own abilities to do so. An extended gap in U.S. human
spaceflight capabilities also increases our risk posture to adequately
maintain and utilize the ISS and, unless a commercial capability arises
to transport our astronauts, NASA would continue to be reliant on the
Russian Soyuz.
Thus, further delays in the CEV are strategically more damaging to
our Nation's space program than delays to these other science missions.
I stand by my decision regarding how to implement the priorities of the
President and Congress within the resources provided, and I will work
closely with our stakeholders in Congress and the scientific community
to make sure they understand my rationale. Some of our stakeholders
will not agree with my position, but it is important for everyone to
understand the rationale. These are difficult decisions, but we must
balance the competing priorities for our Nation's civil space and
aeronautics research endeavors with the limited resources available.
If the funds budgeted for Exploration Systems were to be used to
provide additional funds for Science missions, additional Aeronautics
Research, or other Congressionally-directed items, I must advise the
Congress that such redirection of already-budgeted funds will directly
impact NASA's ability to effectively and efficiently transition the
workforce and capabilities from the Space Shuttle to the new CEV
systems. Funds available to carry out this transition are already lean,
with little management reserve or margin for error. This transition
from the Space Shuttle to the CEV is NASA's greatest management
challenge over the next several years, and we will need everyone's help
within NASA, industry, and our stakeholders to make the transition
successful.
Beyond fulfilling our existing commitment, NASA's FY 2007 budget
provides the necessary resources to carry out the next steps of the
Vision for Space Exploration. The FY 2007 budget provides $3,978
million for Exploration Systems. Last summer, NASA defined the
architecture for the exploration systems that will be necessary in
carrying forth that Vision, and we notified the Congress of NASA's need
to curtail several research and technology activities not directly
contributing to the near-term priorities of timely development of the
CEV and Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) based on the results of that
exploration architecture study and the limited funds available. I want
to thank the Congress for its endorsement of the general architecture
plans in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-155) as well
as the FY 2006 Appropriations Act for NASA (Pub. L. 109-108).
The FY 2007 budget request is sufficient to bring the CEV online no
later than 2014, and potentially much sooner. Given the analysis I have
today and the need to balance budgets with proposed development work
for the CEV and launch vehicles along with the cost estimates for that
work, I cannot be more specific for our stakeholders in the White House
and Congress at this time about the specific point between 2010 and
2014 when NASA will be able to bring the CEV online. NASA requested
industry proposals for the CEV, and we have considerable incentives for
an industry bidder to propose a planned development for the CEV as
close to 2010 as possible. NASA has begun to evaluate those industry
proposals, with a planned contract award in late Summer/early Fall
2006. NASA plans to select one industry contractor team for the design
and development of the CEV. Concurrently, NASA will refine its
independent cost estimates for the CEV and launch systems as well as
find cost savings through workforce synergies and contract efficiencies
between the Space Shuttle and CEV launch systems within the budget
profile projected in FY 2007. We believe we can find synergies and
contract efficiencies by sharing or transferring subsystems, personnel,
resources, and infrastructure between the Space Shuttle propulsion
elements and the CEV, CLV, and Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle. I believe
that with the FY 2007 budget, NASA and industry have a real opportunity
to make the CEV operational sooner than 2014. I should be able to
report a more definitive date for bringing the CEV online by the time
we award the CEV contract. Until then, NASA is in the midst of source
selection for the CEV procurement, and we are limited in our ability to
provide information in this competitive environment involving a multi-
billion dollar procurement.
For the CLV, NASA has directed two industry teams to begin initial
development of the vehicle's propulsion systems, and to develop designs
for the CLV upper stage. The Agency also plans to award design,
development, test, and evaluation contracts later this year. NASA is
planning a systems requirements review for this project in the fall
with a preliminary design review in 2008 in order for this new launch
vehicle to be ready for when the CEV comes on-line.
While NASA needed to significantly curtail projected funding for
biological and physical sciences research on the ISS as well as various
research and technology projects in order to fund development for the
CEV, the U.S. segment of the ISS was designated a National Laboratory
in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. Thus, NASA is seeking
partnerships with other government agencies like the National Science
Foundation, Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health (NIH),
Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and
Technology as well as the commercial sector to conduct research onboard
the ISS. However, the research utilization of the ISS is impacted due
to limited cargo and crew transportation. For this reason, NASA's need
for investment to spur a commercial cargo and/or crew transportation
service is even more compelling.
With respect to funding for non-exploration related life and
microgravity research pursuant to direction in Section 204 of the NASA
Authorization Act of 2005, the Agency completed an extensive exercise
to define exactly what activities should be categorized as ISS
research. I have reviewed NASA's investments in non-Exploration related
life and microgravity research, and I believe that NASA is complying
with the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. Consistent with Section 204 of
the Act, of the $238.1 million allocated to ISS Research in FY 2006,
$35.7 million (or 15 percent) will be dedicated to non-exploration
research.
Scientific Discovery
In 2005, NASA's science missions enjoyed a year of significant
achievements. Deep Impact traveled 268 million miles to meet comet
Tempel 1, sending its impactor to collide with the comet and providing
researchers with the best-ever comet data and images. The Mars twin
rovers continue studying the harsh Martian environment, well beyond
their expected mission life. Cassini may have found evidence of liquid
water erupting from below the surface of Saturn's moon Enceladus. The
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter successfully launched and went into orbit
around Mars, to help us better understand the history of water on Mars.
The Voyager 1 spacecraft entered the vast, turbulent expanse of the
heliosheath, 8.7 billion miles from the sun, where no human-made object
has traveled before. The Hubble Space Telescope continues its
successful mission of discovery and exploration. Among its many
achievements was the discovery that Pluto may have three moons,
offering more insights into the nature and evolution of the Pluto
system and Kuiper Belt. Through coordination of observations from
several ground-based telescopes and NASA's Swift and other satellites,
scientists solved the 35-year old mystery of the origin of powerful,
split-second flashes of light called gamma-ray bursts. The Tropical
Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) provided data to aid our
understanding of the changes inside a hurricane, helping scientists re-
create storms on computer forecast models, which can assist in the
forecasting of future tropical cyclone transformations. On January 19,
2006, we successfully launched the New Horizons Mission, beginning its
9 year journey to Pluto for scientific discovery. On April 25, 2006,
CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite
Observations) and Cloudsat are scheduled to launch from Vandenberg Air
Force Base. Together, they will provide new perspectives on Earth's
clouds and aerosols, answering questions about how they form, evolve,
and affect water supply, climate, weather, and air quality. Truly, this
has been a successful year of science achievements--a trend I expect to
continue.
NASA's FY 2007 budget request provides $5,330 million for the
Agency's Science portfolio to explore the universe, solar system, and
Earth. My decision to curtail the rate of growth for NASA's Science
missions is not intended in any way to demonstrate any lack of respect
for the work done by NASA Science. On the contrary, NASA's science
missions remain one of the Nation's crowning achievements, and NASA is
a world leader with 54 satellites and payloads currently operating in
concert with the science community and our international partners. My
decision to slow the rate of growth for NASA's Science missions is
simply a matter of how the Agency will use the available resources
within the overall NASA portfolio. In fact, the Agency's Science budget
has grown much faster than NASA's total budget since FY 1993. In 1992,
the Science budget represented only 24 percent of the overall NASA
budget while it represents 32 percent of the Agency's budget in FY
2007. NASA's Science budget is moderated to 1.5 percent growth in the
FY 2007 budget request compared with the amount appropriated for NASA
in FY 2006 (in accordance with NASA's Initial Operating Plan provided
to the Committee) and then 1 percent per year thereafter through FY
2011.
In the FY 2007 budget, there are some additional budget shifts
within the Science portfolio to rebalance the program to better reflect
our original science priorities and remain consistent with the FY 2006
Budget Amendment. Within the Science budget, the Solar System
Exploration budget provides $1,610 million to fund missions to all
solar system bodies and to maintain the Deep Space Network. Mars
exploration is kept at roughly its current level of funding which
allows missions every 26 months when the Earth and Mars are in
planetary alignment. Mars will be the most thoroughly studied planet
besides our own Earth. NASA continues a series of openly competed
missions for Discovery, New Frontiers, and Scout missions to various
planetary bodies in the solar system. Juno, a competitively-selected
mission to study Jupiter, is slated to be the next New Frontiers
mission, following the New Horizons mission on its way to Pluto after
its successful launch in January.
After extensive reviews, NASA has extended the mission operating
life of several Earth Science missions including TRMM and Terra,
Heliophysics missions such as both Voyager spacecraft, and Astrophysics
missions including Chandra and the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe.
Aeronautics Research
NASA's FY 2007 request for the Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate is $724 million. Proper stewardship of this funding
requires a coherent strategic vision for aeronautics research, which we
are working to develop. While I am concerned that our Nation's aviation
industry not lose market share to global competitors, NASA's research
must benefit the American public by supporting a broad base of
aeronautics research. NASA's aeronautics research cannot and will not
directly subsidize work to specific corporate interests. There are
fundamental questions in aeronautics research needing to be answered,
and NASA will focus its aeronautics research on those issues. NASA will
take responsibility for the intellectual stewardship of the core
competencies of aeronautics for the Nation in all flight regimes, from
subsonic through hypersonic flight. We will also conduct the
fundamental research that is needed to meet the substantial challenges
of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS), and we intend
to work closely with our agency partners in the Joint Planning and
Development Office (JPDO).
Across our aeronautics portfolio, NASA is taking a long-term,
strategic approach to our research plans to ensure that we pursue the
cutting-edge across the breadth of aeronautics disciplines that will be
required to support revolutionary capabilities in both air vehicles and
the airspace in which they fly. NASA's commitment to technical
excellence requires a commitment to rigor and discipline and will not
focus on demonstrations that lack the traceability and scalability
required for true scientific and engineering advancement. Hence, we are
turning away from the four-demo approach proposed last year under the
Vehicle Systems Program. Instead, our Fundamental Aeronautics Program
will focus on fundamental research that addresses aeronautics
challenges in areas such as aerothermodynamics, acoustics, propulsion,
materials and structures, computational fluid dynamics, and
experimental measurement techniques. The Fundamental Aeronautics
Program will generate data, knowledge, and design tools that will be
applicable across a broad range of air vehicles in subsonic (both fixed
and rotary wing), supersonic, and hypersonic flight.
In the Aviation Safety Program, NASA is developing strategic
research plans, ensuring that the research conducted will lead to
capabilities and technologies for improving safety consistent with the
revolutionary changes anticipated in air vehicles foreseen in the
future. The focus will be vehicle-centric, with areas of research that
include vehicle health management, resilient aircraft control, aging
and durability challenges, and advanced flight deck technologies.
In the Airspace Systems Program, NASA will conduct the fundamental
research required to bring about the revolutionary capabilities
articulated in the JPDO's vision for the NGATS. Our research will focus
on the development of future concepts, capabilities, and technologies
that will enable major measurable increases in air traffic management
effectiveness, flexibility, and efficiency.
In addition to the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate's three
research programs, NASA is committed to preserving as national assets
those aeronautics test facilities which are deemed mission critical and
necessary to meet the needs and requirements of the Agency and the
Nation. NASA has established the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP), a
component of the Shared Capability Assets Program (SCAP), as a long-
term, funded commitment by NASA to retain and invest in test
capabilities that are considered important to the Agency and the
Nation. ATP's purpose is to ensure the strategic availability of the
requisite, critical suite of wind tunnel and ground test facilities
which are necessary to meet immediate and future national requirements.
As part of our overall portfolio, NASA program managers and
researchers will work closely and constructively with industry,
academia, and other government entities to enhance our Nation's
aeronautics capability. In this vein, as a principal member of the
interagency JPDO, NASA has established investment priorities that
directly address the research and development needs of the NGATS which
will enable major increases in the capacity and mobility of the U.S.
Air Transportation System. NASA also plans to collaborate closely with
industry and academia through the use of competitive research awards
and Space Act agreements on prospective research work in line with the
critical thrust areas of the Aeronautics program that will enable
numerous commercial aviation and scientific applications. Our goal is
to focus our total research investments on fundamental aeronautics
questions that need to be answered, and that will benefit the broader
community of academia, industry, and government researchers. We will
transition the achievements from NASA's Aeronautics research and
technology for use by both Government and industry. Additionally, and
in line with the refocused program's priorities, NASA will leave to
others work more appropriately performed or funded by other Agencies or
the private sectors.
In accordance with the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-
155) and the FY 2006 Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 109-108), NASA and the Office of
Science and Technology Policy have been jointly developing a National
Aeronautics Research and Development Policy which will establish a
long-term policy and guidance for future aeronautics research and
development activities. This policy will establish the appropriate role
for Federal investment in U.S. aeronautics research: near- and far-
term, high-priority objectives; roles and responsibilities of the
multiple agencies involved; and, guidance on related infrastructure and
workforce challenges.
Cross-Agency Support Programs
In the FY 2007 budget, NASA proposes a new direct budget category
for programs that cut across NASA's portfolio of space exploration,
scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. These Cross-Agency
Support Programs include: NASA's Education programs funded at $153.3
million; Advanced Business Systems, or more commonly known as the
Integrated Enterprise Management program, is called out as a separate
program rather than being budgeted from within Corporate and Center
General and Administrative accounts and is funded at $108.2 million;
NASA's Innovative Partnership Program, including Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR), has been transferred from Exploration Systems so that these
partnerships may better address Agency-wide needs and is funded at
$197.9 million. Also, the Shared Capabilities Assets Program is funded
at $32.2 million (with additional funding located in the Mission
Directorates) and will ensure that NASA's unique facilities (e.g., wind
tunnels, rocket engine test stands, high-end computing, thermal vacuum
chambers, and other capital assets) are adequately managed with agency-
level decisionmaking to address NASA's and the Nation's needs.
NASA's Education budget request sustains our commitment to
excellence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
education to ensure that the next generation of Americans can accept
the full measure of their roles and responsibilities in shaping the
future and meeting the workforce needs to implement the Vision for
Space Exploration. NASA will continue to provide innovative programs
that use STEM resources (NASA content, people, and facilities) to
inspire the next generation of explorers and innovators. I have
outlined three primary goals for our education investments: (1)
strengthening NASA and the Nation's future workforce; (2) attracting
and retaining students in the STEM pipeline; and, (3) engaging
Americans in NASA's mission through partnerships and alliances. The
greatest contribution that NASA makes in educating the next generation
of Americans is providing worthy endeavors for which students will be
inspired to study difficult subjects like math, science, and
engineering because they too share the dream of exploring the cosmos.
These students are our future workforce. Our education investment
portfolio is directly linked to our overall workforce strategy.
NASA Workforce Strategy
The Vision for Space Exploration is a unique endeavor that will
last many generations. The NASA management team has been working to
build NASA as an institution having ten healthy field Centers known for
technical excellence. We continue to define program management and
research roles and responsibilities for each Center in order to carry
out NASA's missions of space exploration, scientific discovery, and
aeronautics research. All of our centers must contribute to NASA's
primary missions. We are beginning the process of assigning specific
research programs and projects to appropriate NASA Centers. We are not
done, but we are taking the necessary steps to make it happen.
We have many challenges in the Agency, but none more important than
the technical excellence of NASA's workforce. Likewise, we are
beginning to address the problems posed by the aging of NASA's
facilities and physical assets. The overall objective is to transform
the composition of NASA's workforce so that it remains viable for the
long-term goals of NASA's missions. We have a lot of work cut out for
us in the coming months and years ahead in assigning these program
responsibilities and rebuilding the Agency's technical competence in
performing cutting-edge work. NASA has been addressing the challenge of
mitigating the number of civil service employees in the Agency that are
not currently assigned or supporting NASA programs (the so-called
``uncovered capacity'') through a number of means, which were addressed
in a draft report, shared with the Subcommittee in February in
compliance with the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. The final workforce
report, reflecting input from our unions, was submitted to the
Subcommittee on April 13. NASA will conduct a reduction in force of our
civil servants only as an action of last resort consistent with our
statutory constraints. Instead, NASA is focusing its efforts to solve
its uncovered capacity workforce problems through a number of other
actions, including the assignment of new projects to research Centers
that will strengthen their base of in-house work, the Shared Capability
Assets Program that should stabilize the skills base necessary for a
certain specialized workforce; the movement of certain research and
technology development projects from certain centers not suffering from
uncovered capacity problems to centers that are; retraining efforts at
field centers so that the technical workforce can develop new skills;
and the pursuit of reimbursable work for projects and research to
support other government agencies and the private sector through Space
Act Agreements.
NASA's Financial Management
Earlier this month, NASA notified the Committee that it had two
violations of the Antideficiency Act. The violations resulted from the
Agency's failure to request from the Office of Management and Budget
timely reapportionment of Congressionally-approved FY 2004 funds and
timely apportionments of unobligated balances carried over from FY 2004
to FY 2005. The Agency has corrected the errors without the need for
additional appropriations. The Agency has also identified the root
cause of these errors and has addressed them through its aggressive
staff training and process improvements.
NASA has continued to make progress in addressing its other
financial management and reporting challenges. The Office of Management
and Budget has recently provided feedback to NASA affirming the
Agency's progress. The Agency finalized a Corrective Action Plan
addressing financial weaknesses identified in NASA's 2005 financial
audit. The plan was delivered to the Congress, specifically at the
request of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the Committee
on Science and the Subcommittee on Government Management, Finance and
Accountability of the Committee on Government Reform, on February 15,
2006. It incorporates the expert advice of NASA's Inspector General. In
addition, we have reviewed the plan with the Office of Management and
Budget. This Corrective Action Plan provides an integrated, cross-NASA
approach to resolving the Agency's outstanding deficiencies.
Implementation of these corrective actions is reviewed regularly by the
NASA Deputy Administrator. While these corrective actions will require
some time to implement, NASA remains committed to improving its
financial management and reporting.
Impact of Earmarks on NASA's Mission
NASA pioneers the future in space exploration, scientific
discovery, and aeronautics research. In order to carry out this
mission, NASA awards peer-reviewed science grants and conducts
competitively-selected procurements to select research and development
projects to benefit the public based on the priorities of the Congress,
President, and scientific community. NASA is implementing these
priorities within the resources provided. NASA's FY 2006 appropriation
totals $16.623 billion, including $349.8 million in emergency
supplemental appropriations for Hurricane Katrina recovery at NASA
facilities in Louisiana and Mississippi. Within this FY 2006
appropriation is a total of $568.5 million in directed funding for 198
discrete site-specific and programmatic Congressional interest items, a
record high in both dollar amount and number of individual items. These
Congressional interest items are offset by reductions within NASA's
budget, to ongoing and planned NASA programs. Earmarks have increased
by a factor of more than 30 in number and almost 8 in dollar value
since FY 1997, when NASA was earmarked $74 million, for 6 discrete
items. The growth of these Congressional directions is eroding NASA's
ability to carry out its mission of space exploration and peer-reviewed
scientific discovery.
In formulating our budget, NASA prioritizes activities to achieve
an integrated package of programs and projects to best achieve the
priorities that have been provided us by both the President and the
Congress. The redirection of funding erodes the integrity of our plans,
has resulted in delays and/or cancellation of planned activities, and
may conflict with timely development of the CEV. In FY 2006, as a
result of earmarks, NASA had to redirect a significant portion of many
planned budgets. Fully 50 percent of the planned Education program
required redirection, 16 percent of the Innovative Partnerships
Program, 5 percent of the Exploration Systems budget, and 4 percent of
the Science budget. Further, the scientific community bases its
research priorities on a peer-review process. Congressional site-
specific earmarks circumvent this process for setting research
priorities within the science community and erode the integrity of that
process. Site specific earmarks to institutions outside of NASA
exacerbate the problems of NASA's ``uncovered capacity'' workforce,
where NASA civil servant scientists and engineers do not have funds for
their own research and development projects. As stated in the
President's ACI, ``The rapidly growing level of legislatively directed
research funds undermines America's research productivity.'' NASA seeks
the assistance of this Committee and Congress in reducing earmarks in
the FY 2007 budget process.
NASA's Next Steps
For the last three decades, NASA and the Nation's human spaceflight
program have been focused on the development and operation of the Space
Shuttle and the ISS. In its final report, the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board (CAIB) was very forthright in its judgment that
these goals are too limited to justify the expense, difficulty, and
danger inherent to manned spaceflight, given the limitations of today's
technology. The CAIB was equally forthright in calling for a national
consensus in the establishment of a program having broader strategic
goals. The Vision for Space Exploration is that endeavor. The Congress
has endorsed it, and NASA is working to implement it. But to effect
these changes, NASA must engage in a major transformation--taking the
capabilities we have throughout the Agency and restructuring them to
achieve a set of goals for the 21st century that we have outlined
earlier this month in our 2006 NASA Strategic Plan. This is an enormous
challenge, but we have begun to transform our entire organization to
foster these changes and to enhance a positive, mission-driven culture.
The CAIB was also clear in its assessment that the lack of open
communication on technical and programmatic matters was a direct cause
of the loss of Columbia. We have understood and embraced this
assessment, and are absolutely and completely committed to creating an
environment of openness and free-flowing communication. However, NASA
still has to make a number of improvements in its internal
communications as well as how we communicate externally to our
stakeholders, the scientific community, and the public. NASA is making
a concerted effort to address all problems in this area.
For America to continue to be preeminent among nations, it is
necessary for us also to lead in space exploration, scientific
discovery, and aeronautics research. It is equally true that great
nations need allies and partners. The spirit of innovation and the
muscle of government and industry are needed to turn the Nation's
Vision for Space Exploration into reality. These journeys to the ISS,
the Moon, Mars, or even Pluto are the most difficult things our Nation
does. June Scobee Rodgers, the widow of Dick Scobee, Commander of the
Space Shuttle Challenger on that ill-fated day twenty years ago,
recently noted, ``Without risk there's no discovery, there's no new
knowledge, there's no bold adventure . . . the greatest risk is to take
no risk.'' We must continue our journey. America, through NASA, leads
the way.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would
be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much for the statement
and for working with us on the authorization bill, because I do
think it was a landmark that we passed it, the first one in 5
years, and this Committee led the way, and we want to continue
to do so.
I want to ask you, along the lines of the authorization
bill, what kinds of opportunities do you see for outside-NASA
funding for some of the research projects that we hope would be
more of the basic science research, as opposed to just the
human spaceflight research?
Dr. Griffin. There, I think, are opportunities. We, at
NASA, were pursuing those in the period of time before we lost
Columbia. I think it will come as no surprise to you, Senator,
and to this Committee, that when we lost Columbia, those
efforts were shut down rather abruptly. We are now reinstating
those. We have an agreed-upon plan with our international
partners to finish the Station, a plan supported by this
administration and this Congress, that utilizes, appropriately,
the Shuttle flights we have left. In parallel with that, we are
restarting our efforts to seek both commercial partnerships, as
well as partnerships within DOD and other Federal agencies to
utilize the Station. With luck, and with effort on our part,
those initiatives will begin to bear fruit around the time that
we have a larger crew complement aboard the Station to be able
to do the research and transportation systems which can help us
out.
Senator Hutchison. Is the National Science Foundation and
perhaps the Department of Energy, are those two also on the
horizon for potential partnerships for the Space Station
research?
Dr. Griffin. We will be talking to all of the Federal R&D
agencies, as well as some of the significant commercial players
that we were speaking with in earlier years, and trying to
reinvigorate those efforts.
Senator Hutchison. Let me ask you, in your opening
statement you mentioned commercial possibilities for launch and
for taking crew back and forth. What is the timetable that you
envision that you might be able to test that? And is it what
you're looking at to close the gap between 2010 and 2014, or is
it a different timetable?
Dr. Griffin. No, you are exactly right, Senator. We are
looking for commercial capability. With our money, we are
looking to stimulate the development of commercial capability
to help bridge the gap between 2010 and, at the latest, 2014,
for the CEV, and also to continue on beyond, because we believe
that if we can use some of our money as seed funding to help
stimulate the growth of that commercial capability, that we
will save money in basic cargo, and, later, crew transportation
services, that can be applied to more far-reaching things,
where NASA should properly be involved.
Senator Hutchison. So, your goal is 2010----
Dr. Griffin. My goal is 2010, or as soon thereafter as we
can make it. Currently, we're in source selection on that
effort, I don't yet know what the offerors are offering. But as
soon as we do, we will, believe me, be happy to work with your
committee on this. This is my initiative, and it is one that I
hold close. I'm asking for the Committee's support in
sustaining that commercial initiative.
Senator Hutchison. Well, let me say, for one committee
person, that I think that is a very good proposal, if it can
actually work, because something Senator Nelson and I have been
united on is not having a gap. And we know we've been pushing
and, sort of, trying to get blood out of a turnip, if you will.
But if there is the capability for Americans to go into space
between 2010 and 2014, I will feel much more secure. So, I hope
that you will continue to keep us up to date on that.
Dr. Griffin. Senator, you have no stronger advocate than I
for the preservation and protection of our U.S. human
spaceflight capability. I share those goals. We have devoted as
much of our resources to that effort as we believe we prudently
can. Consistent with the fact that finishing the Space Station
with the Space Shuttle has to be our first priority, as you,
yourself, have stated, and frankly, the budget resources for
that did not exist in our budgets when I came onboard. We have
fixed that, but, to some extent, it has been at the expense of
the CEV.
Senator Hutchison. Senator Nelson?
Senator Bill Nelson. Madam Chairman, I would defer to the
Chairman of the Committee.
The Chairman. Go right ahead.
Senator Bill Nelson. Well, thank you.
The 4-year gap worries me because it goes back to the
initial plan, 2014. We know, on the basis of the experience
with the Space Shuttle, that it was supposed to fly in 1978,
but it didn't fly for another 3 years. And if that were to
occur with the CEV, then we're down for 6 or 7 years.
Furthermore, who knows what the geopolitics of access to space
with humans is going to be in the year 2015. Do you have any
way of shortening it?
Dr. Griffin. Sir, the budget I've recommended, and that the
administration has supported and put forth and is being brought
to this Committee, balances, if you will, the hard choices that
have to be made by each of our different portfolios--science,
aeronautics, Shuttle, Station, exploration. The only way to
narrow the gap between the retirement of the Shuttle and the
operational capability of the CEV would be to put more money
from some other source into that. We really cannot take money
from the Shuttle and Station. We might, after 25 years of
experience, regret that the Shuttle and the Station cost what
they cost. And we resolve, all of us, to do better next time.
But we cannot claim, after 25 years, that we don't know what
they cost. We do know what they cost. And we have now budgeted
for that. But there's no money to be found there.
We have done what we desperately did not want to do, which
was to take $2.2 billion from science and $1.6 billion from
exploration to make sure that we did fund, adequately, the
Shuttle and Station. And aeronautics is funded at less then $1
billion, so that is not a place to go, as well.
So, within my constraints, Senator, I must respectfully say
that I believe I have put together the best-balanced program
that I know how to give you. And, regrettably, it features a
several-year gap between Shuttle retirement and CEV operational
use.
Senator Bill Nelson. The budget that has been put forth is
already more than a billion dollars less than the amount that
was authorized by the Congress in the NASA authorization bill.
So, what if we gave you another billion dollars. How would you
allocate that?
Dr. Griffin. That's not a question that I would want to
answer off the top of my head, because we made many reductions
across the board in NASA, all of them to things that all of us
would like to do. So, I would want to take that question for
the record and say what we would do.
[The information referred to follows:]
We sought, in our budget request, to achieve the necessary balance
of priorities over the 5-year budget horizon, and I think we got it
right given the constraints we had. Given the current budget
constraints facing the Nation, we do not believe that NASA's budget
should be increased above the requested level. If NASA were to receive
more funding to our top-line, there are some key factors I would use
for deciding where to provide those funds.
1. Preserve the Integrity of the President's Request
The first priority would be to preserve the integrity of the
President's budget request. In formulating our budget, NASA prioritizes
activities to achieve an integrated package of programs and projects to
best achieve the priorities that have been provided us by both the
President and the Congress. There are items that threaten to erode that
integrity in the course of the appropriations process, such as earmarks
and rescissions. Last year, as an example, content that was planned in
the President's request had to be reduced $778.6 million to accommodate
rescissions and fund Congressional interest items. NASA seeks the
assistance of the Congress in reducing earmarks in the FY 2007 budget
process, but, should there be earmarks or rescissions this year,
additional topline funding would be used to avoid otherwise necessary
reductions to content in the President's request.
2. Restore Funding Borrowed for Hurricane Recovery
NASA borrowed $100 million in FY 2005 funds from the Shuttle and
International Space Station (ISS) programs to provide immediate support
of hurricane recovery efforts in the Gulf region before any
supplemental funds were provided. The Space Shuttle and ISS Cargo/Crew
program requirements for those funds still remain. The intent was to
eventually repay these programs for this initial outlay of funds, and
NASA has repaid $20 million of the amount borrowed. NASA is seeking
transfer authority in the pending supplemental that would allow us to
repay more of these FY 2005 funds.
3. Avoid Adding New Content That Is Not Affordable in the Budget Runout
If we had a higher top-line, and funds were available in excess of
what would be needed for items one and two, we would have to re-look at
the balance of our portfolio. However, we would need to do so with a 5-
year perspective, not just the 1-year view. The plain fact is that NASA
simply cannot afford to do everything that our many constituencies
would like the Agency to do. We must set priorities, and we must adjust
our spending to match those priorities. I will not start new projects
for which I know I do not have sufficient funding in the outyears--that
would not be responsible, and has caused NASA problems in the past by
putting too much on our plate.
4. Assess Priorities and Portfolio Balance, and Then Allocate Remaining
Funds
Consistent with the priorities of both the President and those
enacted by the Congress through the NASA Authorization Act of 2005
(Pub. L. 109-155), NASA would assess our portfolio and determine the
most effective allocation of funds. Consistent with item three, the
effect of these funds would not be to start new activities that would
create unfunded outyear liens for NASA. The use of these funds
therefore, would primarily be to increase the health of ongoing
activities rather than create new ones.
Senator Bill Nelson. OK. I wish you would because if the
Congress were to appropriate according to the authorization,
the NASA authorization, then it would be in excess of a billion
dollars more than your request. You are constrained by OMB, and
you have, with some emotion, stated how difficult it has been,
given your constraints.
Well, let's talk about a more optimistic outlook. You
apparently feel quite optimistic about a Shuttle manifest on 16
or 17 flights to complete the Space Station. Why don't you
share with the Committee your outlook.
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator, I'm pleased to do that.
Our return-to-flight sequence was always offered as two
flights, because we knew there was a lot that we did not know
about foam shedding from the external tank, and there is no
facility on the ground which can be used to test it. It must be
test flown. We experienced an unwanted and unplanned loss of a
major chunk of foam from the STS-114 flight. Otherwise, the
tank really did pretty well. We believe we've fixed that. We
are looking at other areas on the tank. In fact, I mentioned to
you that the decision meeting on exactly what our final
configuration for the tank will be, and our selected launch
date will be this Thursday--and I'll be happy to share that
with you or your staff when we've made that.
We believe we will be in good shape to fly, this July. We
believe that, when we fly, we will fly well. When we fly, and
fly well, we believe that we will be back in shape to execute
Shuttle flights at our historical and average rate over the
last 25 years, which, including downtime for two accidents, is
more than four and a half flights per year, on average,
including downtime. We now have three orbiters that are
essentially fresh from depot maintenance.
So, we believe that once we are successfully returned to
flight, we will easily be able to complete 16 flights for
Station assembly and one flight for Hubble servicing. If that
picture changes, if our engineers are surprised again, I will
be absolutely open and forthcoming with this Committee and our
other national stakeholders, and we will discuss the problem.
But, right now, we believe we're in good shape to get back to
flying and to finish the Station.
Senator Bill Nelson. Just to conclude that thought, share
with the Committee how important, in your mind, it is that we
utilize this investment by completing the Space Station and the
scientific goals that you expect to achieve.
Dr. Griffin. Well, I believe it's important--and I've been
on record on this--I believe it's important to complete the
Station, for several reasons, reasons going beyond the science.
But, very specifically, we will use the Station to study more
carefully the effects of zero gravity on humans in space, in
preparation for longer voyages of exploration.
Most crucially to me, as an engineer, we will use the
Station as a place to learn how to live and work in space. When
we talk about setting forth on voyages to Mars 20 years from
now, we need to know many things that we do not know. I've
often used this analogy in a speech, so bear with me, if you
will. Suppose someone were to ask the Navy today to put a crew
onboard a submarine, seal the hatch up, tell them to leave port
and not return for 2 and a half years, ``You can't surface, and
you can't catch any extra food.'' How do you think they'd do?
We can't do that today. Until we can successfully conduct that
experiment, we're not ready to go to Mars. And the Space
Station is the place where we're going to learn how to do that.
Also, the United States made commitments--and this is
extraordinarily important--as a leader among spacefaring
nations, with 15 of those nations, to execute the Space Station
program. The President has very forthrightly said that he
believes the Vision for Space Exploration should involve
partnership with other nations. How? I ask myself, how can we
expect other nations to partner with us and hope that we will
keep our word in another 15 or 20 years if we don't keep it
today?
So, for those reasons, I believe it is important, was
important, and will be important to finish the Station,
consistent with our promises.
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Senator Stevens?
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. If
you would just put my statement--opening statement at the
beginning of the hearing, I'd appreciate it.
Senator Hutchison. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Stevens follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Stevens, U.S. Senator from Alaska
I am delighted to see Dr. Griffin here again, a little over a year
since we confirmed him as NASA Administrator. It has been a busy year,
for him and for the Committee.
We passed and enacted the first reauthorization bill for NASA in 5
years, and put the Congress on record in support of the Vision for
Exploration.
We authorized funding levels that were carefully drawn up to help
NASA meet the challenges of shifting to the new Vision with a minimum
of disruption to important ongoing programs in human exploration and to
other important NASA programs in Space Science, Earth Science, and
Aeronautics Research.
Unfortunately, the White House asked for over a billion dollars
less than we authorized, so we are seeing some of those disruptions we
had hoped to avoid.
This has placed many challenges on you, Dr. Griffin, in trying to
divide a smaller piece of the budgetary pie, and you have been asked
here to tell us about those challenges and how you are dealing with
them.
We will also be looking into steps we might be able to take in the
Congress to help you meet some of those challenges, and I look forward
to working with you to see if, together, we can find some helpful
answers.
The space program is an important part of our Nation's ability to
keep our competitive edge, and to stimulate interest in science and
education, and we will be addressing those issues in future hearings
and in legislation we may be considering in the future.
Thank you for your service at NASA, and I look forward to your
testimony today.
The Chairman. I'm interested in----
Senator Hutchison. And thank you--I want to say, Mr.
Chairman, how supportive you have been of NASA and space in the
full Committee, and I really appreciate it, because I think the
initiatives that we're making have made a huge difference
already, and will have a lasting impact. So, thank you.
The Chairman. Well, you're very generous.
Dr. Griffin, I'm interested in your concept of the private-
sector participation. But do you envision a partnership or--a
true partnership or just contractual relationships with the
private sector?
Dr. Griffin. I think we could contemplate both of those.
And I would hope for both of those. But the first thing that I
believe that NASA, frankly, needs to learn to do is to learn
how to conduct and conclude an arms-length commercial
transaction with a supplier of services that we need.
I've used this analogy before, as well, but if you'll bear
with me, I'll use it again. In the growth of aviation--and you
are a pilot, and you know aviation as well as anyone--this
Nation never had any trouble distinguishing two facets of
aviation. In one facet, the government participated in the
development of the arts and sciences of aviation, and bought
airplanes, and built its own airplanes from commercial
suppliers--or from suppliers; and in other areas, the U.S.
Government bought services, tickets, or cargo space on
airplanes.
In developing space, we, at NASA--frankly, in the Defense
Department--have largely relied upon buying hardware rather
than contracting with industry to provide services that we
need. Some of that has been the historical nature of the
development, and some has been cultural.
Now, for the first time, with the International Space
Station, we have a market, if you will, sir. We have a regular,
steady market for goods and services and, later, when they have
the capability, crew rotation, a market that I can turn over to
industrial suppliers, if they can be made to exist. They don't
exist right now. But, by providing the seed money that I've
referred to in my earlier statement as an incentive to
accompany investment on the part of the commercial operators
themselves, we might be able to create this capability.
The analogy that I would use would be the difference
between the government buying a tanker aircraft and the
government buying a ticket for its personnel to fly in a
commercial version of that same aircraft. That's what I'm
striving for, sir.
The Chairman. Well, you're right, I've lived through the
process of the development of the aviation community,
particularly the military side, and I can distinctly remember,
as a young boy, going out and watching the fly-off at the Los
Angeles Airport, where the companies made the airplanes and
competed with one another for the contract with the Federal
Government. That has changed now, because we design the
airplane, and then they compete to, really, produce it. Aren't
we missing something, in terms of space? It does seem to me
there's a link to the Space Station. And that is totally
Federal, right? There's no competition from the private sector
that, is there?
Dr. Griffin. No, you're----
The Chairman. Do you contemplate any?
Dr. Griffin. No, sir. The International Space Station, our
space platform, is a Federal development----
The Chairman. I'm talking about the access to it----
Dr. Griffin. Current access----
The Chairman.--in terms of the Shuttle. Are you----
Dr. Griffin. Current access to it is entirely Federal, yes,
sir.
The Chairman. Do you contemplate offering an opportunity to
the private sector to develop that access?
Dr. Griffin. That is exactly what we are contemplating,
sir. That is exactly what we are contemplating.
The Chairman. And what's the timeframe for that?
Dr. Griffin. I'm hoping, this spring, to conclude Space Act
agreements for demonstrations of this capability with one or
more potential suppliers, and, if those demonstrations go well,
to be able to transition to actual commercial contracts for
service by these suppliers, initially for cargo, and then, if
it works well, later for crew, in the next 5, 6, 7 years.
Senator Hutchison. 2010?
Dr. Griffin. Am I----
The Chairman. 2010.
Dr. Griffin. Am I being--am I being clear, sir?
The Chairman. Yes. I--well, I had missed that connection,
because it does seem to me that that is where we could lead the
world, with the ingenuity of our private sector, if it were
stimulated and they really believe that we're going to make
that broad jump.
Dr. Griffin. That's exactly right. And with the Space
Station, I have a known and predictable market that they can
serve. So, the commercial suppliers, if we can help bring them
into being, will not have to worry that the government will
decide, next month or next year, not to launch.
The Chairman. Well, let me make a----
Dr. Griffin. We can't not launch, because we have to supply
the Station.
The Chairman. Just one other question to take it beyond
that. And that is, do you contemplate that the private sector
could contract with the private providers of the access to take
private experiments to Space Station?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, sir. That could follow, as well.
Absolutely. That is my hope. Further, I hope that by the time
we are ready to return to the Moon, that there will be such
capability in existence that we can hire, if you will, to help
with certain parts of the effort.
The Chairman. Let me ask just one question here. I'm sure
you're familiar with Norm Augustine's report on The Gathering
Storm, and NASA used to be, really, the bright spot in our
horizon for attracting bright young people to study science and
technology, et cetera.
Do you feel NASA still has that role?
Dr. Griffin. Absolutely, sir. Absolutely. I'm sorry, I feel
very strongly about this--the best thing NASA does, ever did,
or can do to stimulate an interest in science, math,
engineering, biology, any scientific subjects, is to do the
kinds of things, the kinds of bold, far-reaching missions of
exploration that attract kids to study hard subjects because
they want to be part of it.
I will relate, not for the first time, a personal story. I
was 8 years old when Sputnik launched. And I was interested in
space long before Sputnik launched. I was interested in it from
the time I was 4 or 5 years old. So, I was in the odd position
of being in the third grade and explaining to my teacher what
Sputnik was and how it stayed up. I suspect that I was not
typical.
[Laughter.]
Senator Bill Nelson. That's right.
Dr. Griffin. But I went through school, all the way through
college with a bunch of kids who got interested in science and
engineering, aviation, all kinds of science and engineering,
because of what happened with Sputnik and the reaction of the
United States to Sputnik. In 1957 and 1958, we decided to build
a great space program. And we did. We flew to the Moon, and we
made plans to go farther. We never implemented those plans.
And, yes, interest in studying difficult subjects waned as a
result.
I believe, to the core of my being, that if NASA does bold,
far-reaching missions that excite the imagination, that kids
will want to study science and math to be part of it. And those
benefits will echo throughout our society, and make us, once
again, the most technologically competitive nation on Earth.
The Chairman. Well, let me close by saying this. As you
know, we have a Challenger Learning Center in our state. But I
sense that the support for those centers is dwindling, not only
in our state, but throughout the country. What can we do to
rekindle that support?
Dr. Griffin. Again, sir, I have no better answer to
rekindling the support for the Challenger Learning Centers and
other space-related activities than to ask and require NASA and
our space program to do the right things. And you've done that
with the Authorization Act of 2005. With the Authorization Act
of 2005, you have made the exploration of the solar system by
the United States the law of the land. And now it's my job to
implement the first steps of that. I said in my earlier
statement, I need your help, and you've provided it. We are on
the right path. We are on the right path for space exploration
in this country for the first time, in my opinion, in 30 years.
The Chairman. Well, I understand that, but I----
Dr. Griffin. We just need to stay----
The Chairman.--I don't----
Dr. Griffin.--the course.
The Chairman.--I don't sense the support from the private
sector for those Challenger Learning Centers that we thought
would follow the initiation of the construction and outfitting
of those centers. And I would like to talk to you about that
sometime.
I do believe----
Dr. Griffin. I would be----
The Chairman.--that those centers are essential to interest
grade school children and high school children, you know, to
follow on in your path. But it's very difficult, right now, to
maintain that support. I think it's because of the economy and
the war and other things. But we certainly ought to improve it.
I congratulate you. I--and I totally support your vision of
trying to have a true partnership with the private sector in
the total support of the Space Station.
Thank you very much.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hutchison. Senator Allen?
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm really
pleased you've called this hearing. And I've been listening to
the testimony of Dr. Griffin--and thank you for being here
today--and listening to the questions of my colleagues, focused
on a variety of areas.
And it's nothing--you should never apologize for feeling
strongly about an issue, especially one that's so important to
the competitiveness of our country, and that is more young
people, particularly women, Latinos, and African-Americans,
being more interested and encouraged into science and
technology and engineering.
One area where I do, as you well know, in our conversations
from the beginning, when you were nominated by President Bush,
where I feel that we're falling behind our competitors, is in
aeronautics. I look at the proposed budget, and there is a
decrease, not only in this year, but in out years. And I feel
that, to the extent--if you want to look at the engineers in
aeronautics, those engineers are generally older. How are you
going to incent or interest young people in hypersonic flight
and other aspects of aeronautics if the commitment of this
country appears to be reducing in this area?
The Administration has focused on the space exploration
aspects of it, and directed, obviously, a great deal of
resources there. And there are arguments one way or the other
as to how much that investment should be. I do not
necessarily--in fact, I think it's a good idea, your vision for
exploration. I think that's--there's nothing wrong with it
whatsoever. But I've stated, on many occasions, that the
cutting-edge breakthroughs, whether it's--in particular, say,
the new vehicle systems program--this constant cutting of this
area and this research is bound to have an adverse impact on
aeronautics in this country. And aeronautics is important for
our economy, but it's also important for our national security.
And I understand about budget priorities. And, obviously, last
year, working with you, Madam Chairman, you were very helpful,
as were others--but, in particular, you were a key ally in some
of the mitigation of damages proposed, insofar as aeronautics
funding. We're going to have to go through this entire battle
again this year. And I know you recognize that. That's why I'd
liked Senator Nelson's question, ``If you had another billion
dollars,'' you know, where I think at least a good portion of
that should go.
Let me ask you this. Part of what we were--we adopted last
year was the development of a national aeronautics research
policy, so that it's not this annual pitched battle, where
people who have spent their life in aeronautics research wonder
if they're going to have a job, Are they going to be laid off?
And there are also the commensurate number of folks in the
private sector. And so, this, I think, was a positive step, the
requirement of the development of a national aeronautics
research policy.
Could you share with us what is the policy that's going to
be laid out and what options are being considered as you share
with us the status of the development of this national
aeronautics research policy?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator.
First of all, the policy is due in December, and we'll have
it by then. We're in the middle of working on it, as we speak.
And we are working on it with our partners in OSTP, Defense,
and FAA. It will be the first aeronautics policy for this
Nation in a generation, as I know that you know, so we're
taking it quite seriously.
From NASA's perspective, we take the position that our
proper role is in fundamental aeronautics research, the
unknowns that accompany flight at the frontiers of knowledge.
And it's our goal to push back that frontier in hypersonics, in
subsonic flight, for research that's applicable to DOD. We want
to look across the board, but we want to look at aeronautics
research, fundamental aeronautical science, rather than, as has
been the case in some recent years, focusing on development of
demonstrator projects, which, in my judgment, have not been
well connected with what went before, and didn't leave a legacy
for something to come after. They were demonstrations of point
designs rather than carefully thought out experiments to
resolve areas of understanding in aeronautics. So, that's what
we are doing.
I have been fortunate to capture, from DARPA, as a matter
of fact, one of the best people that it's ever been my pleasure
with whom to work, a supporter, who is our AA for aeronautics.
She and I would be happy to come up and discuss what we're
doing, with you and your staff. But that's where we're going.
We think restoring health to NASA aeronautics is as much
about what we do as the exact specific dollar figure that we
put on the work. Aeronautics has been decreasing, within NASA
and within the Nation at large, for quite a long time. It did
not originate with this Administration. And we believe that
part of the reason for that is that we haven't been focusing on
the right things. And that's what I'm trying to do.
Senator Allen. Well, Dr. Griffin, you're correct, the
previous Administration, the Clinton Administration, cut
aeronautics research and development approximately in half, and
the present Administration's--with the proposals, if they
actually went through, would cut it in half again.
What--we're in competition. Our European friends,
obviously, have a determination, strategic plan, to dominate
aeronautics by the year 2010--excuse me--2020. And they seem to
be on the way. We've had--this past year was a good year, but,
for the first time in history, a year ago, the United States
was not number one in aircraft sales.
Where do you see United States research and development in
aeronautics, compared to our global competitors? Do you think
that we are winning, holding our own, or falling behind in the
research and development in aeronautics?
Dr. Griffin. I don't think the measure of success in
research and development in aeronautics is necessarily
reflected in the balance of trade and sales of airplanes. I
believe that----
Senator Allen. It is an indicator.
Dr. Griffin. It might be an indicator, as much, of
marketing success--and it may be an indicator of industrial
policies that are followed, but I personally--I can only tell
you what I believe--I believe that the United States, in terms
of the quality of its technical talent in the aeronautical
sciences, is second to no one. We need to bring a better, and a
different, focus to our work, and that's what I'm trying to do.
But I believe NASA aeronautics researchers are the best in the
world, and that what we do is still in the absolute forefront
of the state-of-the-art.
We do work that enables commercial development a generation
hence to be better. There is nothing that we, at NASA, can do,
or, in my opinion, should do, to influence next year's balance
of airliner sales, or even 5 years from now. That's not an
issue that we, at NASA, can address.
Senator Allen. Well, for the entire history of flight since
the Wright brothers, until that year, the United States was
always number one in having the most advanced, most attractive
aircraft for sales throughout the world. And while you may say
it's a matter--measure of marketing, the United States has
always been pretty good at marketing, as well. I don't think--I
think that it's quality and value as part of it. And I think
what--it's a very competitive international market. And the
others have caught up, and, in some cases, passed us.
Do you see the private sector making up for the reductions
in some of this research and development that have been
occasioned--you can take the last 8 years--do you see the
private sector picking up any of the research and development
funding?
Dr. Griffin. Well, we try very hard not to do research and
development----
Senator Allen. Right.
Dr. Griffin.--that the private sector would do, or
indicates that they would do, which generally means not doing
evolutionary development work that would be just a small
increment--a performance increment beyond where we are, you
know, a more efficient turbine blade or something like that,
that would increase efficiency a percent or so. That's a very
valuable thing to do. It makes money for the developer of the
turbine blade and his jet engine, but, broadly speaking, is, I
think, not a NASA responsibility.
I think a NASA responsibility is to develop the kinds of
newer, better, state-of-the-art computational fluid dynamics
research tools and codes that enable everybody working in
aeronautics to do better flow-field analysis, including, but
not limited to, those people who want more efficient turbine
blades. That example, which I just made up, but is, I think, a
good one, is a difference between the kinds of things I think
we ought to be doing at NASA and what commercial industry
should do.
I've been in industry. Industry does not have the
resources, and does not have the time horizons in its planning,
to worry about developing, in this example, to improve the
state-of-the-art in computational fluid dynamics codes.
Government has had, and still has, the history of that kind of
groundbreaking research. Once that is done, it benefits the
entire aeronautical sciences community, and that's where we
strive to have leverage.
Senator Allen. Understood. What NASA aeronautics needs to
do, as you do, and others, is more of the high-risk----
Dr. Griffin. Exactly.
Senator Allen.--futuristic--that's why the--you mentioned
the hypersonic aircraft, as well as, I mentioned the vehicle
systems programs. And so, that's where we're--we need to
concentrate. I also think it'll make a great deal of sense. I'm
glad to hear that you have--working with DARPA and the
Department of Defense, because, ultimately--I love DARPA. They,
even, are more innovative, probably the most innovative of all
the Federal agencies. It's just a great group.
Dr. Griffin. I love them, too.
Senator Allen. But to the extent you're working with them,
also with the Department of Defense, it's important.
And I look forward to working with you, Madam Chairman, and
you Dr. Griffin, understanding that there are constraints,
priorities need to be met. But I just don't want this key
competence for our country's security and competitiveness to
atrophy with inadequate funding and not--to the extent you get
the private sector or other Federal agencies in on it, I think
that makes some sense--a great deal of sense in some cases. And
I look forward to working with you.
And thank you, again, Madam Chairman and Dr. Griffin, for
both of you alls leadership.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Senator Allen.
I would just suggest that it could be in your meetings with
the Department of Defense where you are going to see how you
can cooperate so that you're not duplicating effort. There may
be things that the Department of Defense is doing through the
Lockheed or the--for instance, on the Joint Strike Fighter--
maybe there are some things that could be picked up by private
industry that even stretches the NASA dollars further, just as
a--an idea to add to the mix.
I want to pursue one other area, and then, if there is
anyone else who has a second round----
In your testimony, you talked about the downsizing,
basically, of the engineers and technicians as you transition
to the CEV and the Launch Vehicles. It appears that you are
trying to use the technology that is the base of knowledge of
many of your engineers for the CEV and the Launch Vehicle. My
question is, How are you going to make the transition? I know
you're going to try to use as many of the people you have and
put them over into the CEV and the Launch Vehicle research, but
how are you going to manage that transition? And do you think
that you can take the same people, with their base of
knowledge, and effectively use them in these new areas?
Dr. Griffin. Yes, Senator, I have no doubt at all that the
people who today work Shuttle and Space Station operations can
transition over and work CEV operations and CLV, distinguishing
between the vehicle and the launch system. So, I have no doubt
that that will work just fine.
Their skills are entirely appropriate--the difficulty is,
of course, that the people who are working on the Shuttle today
are needed for the Shuttle today, or we wouldn't be employing
them. We must be very careful about diverting their attention
from the Shuttle.
Also, we are in a design stage on CEV and CLV; whereas, of
course, Shuttle and Station are totally into operations.
They're not doing any design. We don't want them to do any
design. We want them to finish building what has been designed.
So, we need to inform our design engineers through the
experience of operations, so that good designs will result, by
having some folks who are today in Shuttle and Station
operations participate in the design of the successor systems,
so that we get good information transfer.
Similarly, we need to take some of our younger folks, who
either are not, or have not, worked Shuttle and Station, and
see to it that, before all of the older workforce transitions
out completely, that we have an opportunity to educate some of
our younger workforce in both industry and NASA in the
realities of existing flying programs. And the flying programs
that we have today are Shuttle and Station.
We need a melding of all that we are doing, both the
ongoing operational programs and the new design-phase programs,
so that each properly informs the other, and we get the best
value out of it.
Senator Hutchison. What is your timetable in determining
how you reconfigure these assets that you have?
Dr. Griffin. We are working on it, as we speak. We report
on it regularly within the agency. In the end, of course, we
have to have our plans in place by Shuttle retirement. We have
to know who will transition over to the new systems and who
will have to go somewhere else and do something else. We don't
have that yet. We just don't have that yet.
Senator Hutchison. I suppose, when you start getting your
returns on your proposals--or your requests for proposals on
the CEV and the CLV, you'll begin to have better----
Dr. Griffin. That will certainly help, because those
proposals will come with estimates of the workforce necessary
to launch and sustain them, and all of those things. Then, of
course, we have the issues, as you well know--really, we have
exactly the same issues as the Air Force Titan Program faced a
year or two ago, when they were working up to flying the last
Titan. They still needed the workforce that they needed to fly
the second to last Titan or the third to last Titan. So, how do
you keep the people onboard who are going to launch the last
one? How do you provide incentives to them to stay with you for
as long as you need them?
Senator Hutchison. Well, I think you're on the right track.
You show them where the future is.
Dr. Griffin. We show them where the future is for those who
transition over, and we must, in some fashion, provide
incentives to those who won't be able to go with us and will
have to do something else.
Senator Hutchison. But I think your original concept of
using basic Shuttle knowledge as you go into the CEV was a very
visionary one, because that does keep more of your people.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you. It seemed to me to be the best
approach for retaining and capturing and utilizing the
knowledge that we've spent tens of billions of dollars and two
generations building. I didn't want to let it go.
Senator Hutchison. Well, I'd like to be kept up as you
begin to see the handwriting on the wall for that kind of
transition.
Dr. Griffin. And you know that I will do that.
Senator Hutchison. Yes. Thank you very much.
Senator Nelson?
Senator Bill Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Dr. Griffin, you notice that our questions and our comments
are certainly most felicitous in nature. And we are here not
only as encouragers, but we're also here as cheerleaders for a
program that we happen to love and that we think is very, very
important to the future of this country.
Now, I want to get back to the law. The law of this country
now is the NASA Authorization Act. And in that law it says it
is the policy of the U.S. Government that there is no gap
between the shutting down of the Space Shuttle and the
beginning of the CEV. And then it goes, because we negotiated
with this with you, to give you wiggle room with certain
reports to the Congress.
So, I want to go back to the fact that we stated, earlier,
that this budget request that you are making, which, in
essence, is OMB on your top line, or your bottom line,
whichever way you look at it, is $1.1 billion less than the
amount that is authorized. So, if the Congress's decision,
since we are the funders, is that we appropriate the same
amount that NASA is authorized for in the 2007 fiscal year,
then it gives you new opportunities to do some things, maybe
some in aeronautics, as you said, but you've got this report
that's going on that won't be ready until December, where maybe
you can work something out with the FAA and DOD. But clearly
another billion-plus would give you an opportunity of speeding
up the development of the CEV. Is that correct?
Dr. Griffin. Well, yes, sir, of course. Yes, sir.
Senator Bill Nelson. Speeding it up by 4 years?
Dr. Griffin. Sir, I don't believe that we can have a CEV by
2010, no matter what we do. We are technology-limited to the
2011-2012 timeframe. We're funding-limited for later dates than
that. I mean, I've been in this business 35 years, short of a
national priority crash program, which I think no one is
suggesting, I do not believe that it would be operationally
possible to have a working CEV/CLV combination sooner than 2011
or 2012. I'm in the awkward position that you know that I also
believe that we should not have a significant gap in human
spaceflight; and yet, our Nation has many priorities, and I
defend the President's budget. And so, within the context of
that budget, I am doing everything I can to get the CEV for
us--not for you, for us--as early as it can be done.
Senator Bill Nelson. Clearly, an additional billion dollars
from your request would give you some additional working room
with regard to science.
Dr. Griffin. Well, again, in the President's budget we
believe that we have struck a good balance between the demands
and the needs of science programs and the human spaceflight
programs and aeronautics. There are science programs that we
are having to defer that we would like to do sooner. There are
some smaller programs that we will just outright cut. In the
administration, we believe that we have captured the essence of
the NASA science program without damage and that, as the CEV is
being delayed a bit, so, too, it is fair to ask that some of
the science programs be delayed a bit in order that everybody
bears some of the consequences for hard choices, but no one
bears them all.
Senator Bill Nelson. Where do you see us going with China,
competitor or colleague?
Dr. Griffin. This is my opinion, I think the details of
this should be requested of the State Department rather than
me.
Senator Bill Nelson. No, I'm talking about the space
program.
Dr. Griffin. In the space program, I would offer the
following. China is, as we are, a great nation. They are not in
consonance with us on many things that we would like them to be
more closely aligned, and some of those issues were discussed
at last week's summit. The Chinese have offered an opportunity
for me to visit with them and discuss the beginnings of
cooperation between us and them in space. I think the United
States always benefits from discussions. I do not see how it
can hurt us. I am pleased to accept that invitation. The
President has advised me that he wishes me to accept that
invitation. I look forward to it.
The United States needs good competitors, and it needs good
partners. And sometimes they can both be the same. So, I can't,
at this point, hazard a guess as to what our relationship in
the long-term would be. I will say, 20 years ago who would have
imagined that one of our best partners on the Space Station
today is Russia? So, I think it is in our interest to behave
always as if cooperation is a possible thing. And I believe
that that's what we're doing.
Senator Bill Nelson. Although we saw the beginnings of that
in Apollo/Soyuz in 1976, even though we were two superpowers in
a Cold War, they were the seeds of what were sown----
Dr. Griffin. That's correct.
Senator Bill Nelson.--at that point. So, you've got to
start sowing those seeds. So, I would encourage you to have
those discussions.
Dr. Griffin. And I believe the President would share your
view, which is why he has requested me to make this trip.
Senator Bill Nelson. Down the line, China may understand,
even though they want the prestige of their own space program,
that cooperating with the United States, and the rest of the
world, indeed, on the Space Station might clearly be to their
advantage. So, I will be interested to hear how those talks
proceed.
Let me ask you just one final question. For our Committee,
would you bring us up to date on the mandate that you have laid
down in NASA with regard to openness of scientific opinion?
Dr. Griffin. Of course, sir. I did recently release a
policy, which I believe I--do we have a copy of that we could
submit for the record? Yes, we have brought a copy. We'd be
happy to submit that for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
NASA Policy on the Release of Information to News and Information Media
Scope
This directive sets forth policy governing the release of public
information, which is defined as information in any form provided to
news and information media, especially information that has the
potential to generate significant media, or public interest or inquiry.
Examples include, but are not limited to, press releases, media
advisories, news features, and web postings. Not included under this
definition are scientific and technical reports, web postings designed
for technical or scientific interchange, and technical information
presented at professional meetings or in professional journals.
Applicability
(a) This policy applies to NASA Headquarters, NASA Centers, and
Component Facilities.
(b) In the event of any conflict between this policy and any other
NASA policy, directive, or regulation, this policy shall govern and
supersede any previous issuance or directive.
Principles
(a) NASA, a scientific and technical agency, is committed to a
culture of openness with the media and public that values the free
exchange of ideas, data, and information as part of scientific and
technical inquiry. Scientific and technical information from or about
Agency programs and projects will be accurate and unfiltered.
(b) Consistent with NASA statutory responsibility, NASA will
``provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of
information concerning its activities and the results thereof.''
Release of public information concerning NASA activities and the
results of NASA activities will be made promptly, factually, and
completely.
(c) To ensure timely release of information, NASA will endeavor to
ensure cooperation and coordination among the Agency's scientific,
engineering, and public affairs communities.
(d) In keeping with the desire for a culture of openness, NASA
employees may, consistent with this policy, speak to the press and the
public about their work.
(e) This policy does not authorize or require disclosure of
information that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act (5 U.S.C. Sec. 552) or otherwise restricted by statute,
regulation, Executive Order, or other executive branch policy or NASA
policy (e.g., OMB Circulars, NASA Policy Directives). Examples of
information not releasable under this policy include, without
limitation, information that is, or is marked as, classified
information, procurement sensitive information, information subject to
the Privacy Act, other sensitive but unclassified information, and
information subject to privilege, such as predecisional information or
attorney-client communications.
Responsibilities
(a) The Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs is responsible
for developing and administering an integrated Agency-wide
communications program, establishing Agency public affairs policies and
priorities, and coordinating and reviewing the performance of all
Agency public affairs activities. The Assistant Administrator will
develop criteria to identify which news releases and other types of
public information will be issued nationwide by NASA Headquarters.
Decisions to release public information nationwide by NASA Headquarters
will be made by the Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs or his/
her designee.
(b) NASA's Mission Directorate Associate Administrators and Mission
Support Office heads have ultimate responsibility for the technical,
scientific, and programmatic accuracy of all information that is
related to their respective programs and released by NASA.
(c) Under the direction of the Assistant Administrator for Public
Affairs, public affairs officers assigned to Mission Directorates are
responsible for the timely and efficient coordination of public
information covering their respective programs. This coordination
includes review by appropriate Mission Directorate officials. It also
includes editing by public affairs staff to ensure that public
information products are well written and appropriate for the intended
audience. However, such editing shall not change scientific or
technical data, or the meaning of programmatic content.
(d) Center Public Affairs Directors are responsible for
implementing their portion of the Agency's communications program,
adhering to Agency policies, procedures, and priorities, and
coordinating their activities with Headquarters (and others where
appropriate). They are responsible for the quality of public
information prepared by Center public affairs officers. They also are
responsible for the day-to-day production of public information
covering their respective Center activities, which includes obtaining
the necessary Center concurrences and coordinating, as necessary, with
the appropriate Headquarters public affairs officers.
(e) Center Directors have ultimate responsibility for the accuracy
of public information that does not require the concurrence of
Headquarters. (See ``Public information coordination and concurrence,''
section (d).)
(f) All NASA employees are required to coordinate, in a timely
manner, with the appropriate public affairs officers prior to releasing
information that has the potential to generate significant media, or
public interest or inquiry.
(g) All NASA public affairs officers are required to notify the
appropriate Headquarters public affairs officers in a timely manner
about activities or events that have the potential to generate
significant media or public interest or inquiry.
(h) All NASA public affairs employees are expected to adhere to the
following code of conduct:
(1) Be honest and accurate in all communications.
(2) Honor publication embargoes.
(3) Respond promptly to media requests and respect media
deadlines.
(4) Act promptly to correct mistakes or erroneous information,
either internally or externally.
(5) Promote the free flow of scientific and technical
information.
(6) Protect non-public information.
(i) All NASA employees are responsible for adhering to plans
(including schedules) for activities established by public affairs
offices and senior management for the coordinated release of public
information.
(j) All NASA-funded missions will have a public affairs plan,
approved by the Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs, which will
be managed by Headquarters and/or a designated NASA Center.
(k) Public affairs activities for NASA-funded missions will not be
managed by non-NASA institutions, unless authorized by the Assistant
Administrator for Public Affairs.
(l) The requirements of this directive do not apply to the Office
of Inspector General regarding its activities.
Public Information Coordination and Concurrence
(a) General. All NASA employees involved in preparing and issuing
NASA public information are responsible for proper coordination among
Headquarters, Center, and Mission Directorate offices to include review
and clearance by appropriate officials prior to issuance. Such
coordination will be accomplished through procedures developed and
published by the NASA Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs.
(b) Coordination. To ensure timely release of public information,
Headquarters and Center public affairs officers are required to
coordinate to obtain review and clearance by appropriate officials,
keep each other informed of changes, delays, or cancellation of
releases, and provide advance notification of the actual release.
(c) All public information shall be coordinated through the
appropriate Headquarters offices, including review by the appropriate
Mission Directorate Associate Administrator and mission support office
head, or their designees, to ensure scientific, technical, and
programmatic accuracy, and review by the Assistant Administrator of
Public Affairs or his/her designee to ensure that public information
products are well written and appropriate for the intended audience.
(d) Centers may, however, without the full coordination of
Headquarters, issue public information that is institutional in nature,
of local interest, or has been deemed not to be a Headquarters release.
(The Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs or his/her designee
will determine which public information will be issued nationwide by
NASA Headquarters.) These releases must be coordinated through the
appropriate Center offices and approved by the Center Director and
Center Public Affairs Director. The Center Public Affairs Director is
required to provide proper notification to the NASA Office of Public
Affairs, Headquarters, prior to release. (The Assistant Administrator
for Public Affairs shall publish guidelines for the release of public
information that may be issued by Centers without clearance from
Headquarters' offices.)
(e) Dispute Resolution. Any dispute arising from a decision to
proceed or not proceed with the issuance of a news release or other
type of public information will be addressed and resolved by the
Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs with the appropriate Mission
Directorate Associate Administrator, mission support office head,
Center Director, and others, such as Center Public Affairs Directors,
as necessary. However, the appropriate Mission Directorate Associate
Administrator shall be the arbiter of disputes about the accuracy or
characterization of programmatic, technical, or scientific information.
Additional appeals may be made to the Chief of Strategic Communications
and to the Office of the Administrator. When requested by a Center
Public Affairs Director, an explanation of the resolution will be
provided in writing to all interested Agency parties.
Interviews
(a) Only spokespersons designated by the Assistant Administrator
for Public Affairs, or his/her designee, are authorized to speak for
the Agency in an official capacity regarding NASA policy, programmatic,
and budget issues.
(b) In response to media interview requests, NASA will offer
articulate and knowledgeable spokespersons who can best serve the needs
of the media and the American public. However, journalists may have
access to the NASA officials they seek to interview, provided those
NASA officials agree to be interviewed.
(c) NASA employees may speak to the media and the public about
their work. When doing so, employees shall notify their immediate
supervisor and coordinate with their public affairs office in advance
of interviews whenever possible, or immediately thereafter, and are
encouraged, to the maximum extent practicable, to have a public affairs
officer present during interviews. If public affairs officers are
present, their role will be to attest to the content of the interview,
support the interviewee, and provide post-interview follow-up with the
media as necessary.
(d) NASA, as an Agency, does not take a position on any scientific
conclusions. That is the role of the broad scientific community and the
nature of the scientific process. NASA scientists may draw conclusions
and may, consistent with this policy, communicate those conclusions to
the media. However, NASA employees who present personal views outside
their official area of expertise or responsibility must make clear that
they are presenting their individual views--not the views of the
Agency--and ask that they be sourced as such.
(e) Appropriated funds may only be used to support Agency missions
and objectives consistent with legislative or Presidential direction.
Government funds shall not be used for media interviews or other
communication activities that go beyond the scope of Agency
responsibilities and/or an employee's official area of expertise or
responsibility.
(f) Media interviews will be ``on-the-record'' and attributable to
the person making the remarks, unless authorized to do otherwise by the
Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs or Center Public Affairs
Director, or their designees. Any NASA employee providing material to
the press will identify himself/herself as the source.
(g) Audio recordings may be made by NASA with consent of the
interviewee.
(h) NASA employees are not required to speak to the media.
(i) Public information volunteered by a NASA official will not be
considered exclusive to any one media source and will be made available
to other sources, if requested.
Preventing Release of Classified Information to the Media
(a) Release of classified information in any form (e.g., documents,
through interviews, audio/visual, etc.) to the news media is
prohibited. The disclosure of classified information to unauthorized
individuals may be cause for prosecution and/or disciplinary action
against the NASA employee involved. Ignorance of NASA policy and
procedures regarding classified information does not release a NASA
employee from responsibility for preventing any unauthorized release.
See NPR 1600.1, Chapter 5, Section 5.23 for internal NASA guidance on
management of classified information. For further guidance that applies
to all agencies, see Executive Order 12958, as amended, ``Classified
National Security Information'' and its implementing directive at 32
CFR Parts 2001 and 2004.
(b) Any attempt by news media representatives to obtain classified
information will be reported through the Headquarters Office of Public
Affairs or Installation Public Affairs Office to the Installation
Security Office and Office of Security and Program Protection.
(c) For classified operations and/or programs managed under the
auspices of a DD Form 254, ``Contract Security Classification
Specification,'' all inquiries concerning this activity will be
responded to by the appropriate PAO official designated in Item 12 on
the DD Form 254.
(d) For classified operations and/or information owned by other
government agencies (e.g., DOD, DOE, etc.), all inquiries will be
referred to the appropriate Agency public affairs officer as
established in written agreements.
Preventing Unauthorized Release of Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU)
Information/Material to the News Media
(a) All NASA SBU information requires accountability and approval
for release. Release of SBU information to unauthorized personnel is
prohibited. Unauthorized release of SBU information may result in
prosecution and/or disciplinary action. Ignorance of NASA policy and
procedures regarding SBU information does not release a NASA employee
from responsibility for unauthorized release. See NPR 1600.1, Chapter
5, Section 5.24 for guidance on identification, marking, accountability
and release of NASA SBU information.
(b) Examples of SBU information include: proprietary information of
others provided to NASA under nondisclosure or confidentiality
agreement; source selection and bid and proposal information;
information subject to export control under the International Traffic
in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or the Export Administration Regulations
(EAR); information subject to the Privacy Act of 1974; predecisional
materials such as national space policy not yet publicly released;
pending reorganization plans or sensitive travel itineraries; and
information that could constitute an indicator of U.S. Government
intentions, capabilities, operations, or activities or otherwise
threaten operations security.
(c) Upon request for access to information/material deemed SBU,
coordination must be made with the information/material owner to
determine if the information/material may be released. Other
organizations that play a part in SBU information identification,
accountability and release (e.g., General Counsel, External Relations,
Procurement, etc.) must be consulted for assistance and/or concurrence
prior to release.
(d) Requests for SBU information from other government agencies
must be referred to the respective Agency public affairs officer.
Multimedia Materials
(a) NASA's multimedia material, from all sources, will be made
available to the information media, the public, and to all Agency
Centers and contractor installations utilizing contemporary delivery
methods and emerging digital technology.
(b) Centers will provide the media, the public, and as necessary,
NASA Headquarters with:
(1) Selected prints and original or duplicate files of news-
oriented imagery and other digital multimedia material
generated within their respective areas.
(2) Selected video material in the highest quality format
practical, which, in the opinion of the installations, would be
appropriate for use as news feed material or features in pre-
produced programs and other presentations.
(3) Audio and/or video files of significant news developments
and other events of historic or public interest.
(4) Interactive multimedia features that can be incorporated
into the Agency's Internet portal for use by internal and
external audiences, including the media and the general public.
News Releases Concerning International Activities
(a) Releases of information involving NASA activities, views,
programs, or projects involving another country or an international
organization require prior coordination and approval by the
Headquarters offices of External Relations and Public Affairs.
(b) NASA Centers and Headquarters offices will report all visits
proposed by representatives of foreign news media to the public affairs
officer for the Office of External Relations for appropriate handling
consistent with all NASA policies and procedures.
Dr. Griffin. But the broad outlines of the policy are
really--frankly, we found that the earlier policy was a bit
confused. It had been on the books for quite some length of
time. It was not even clear to my deputy, who happens to be an
attorney. And it wasn't clear to her, then I felt I had no
hope. So, we've clarified it.
The core points of the policy are that NASA employees are,
of course, free to communicate their scientific and technical
and engineering results as they see fit. As in the recent case
of record in The New York Times, they may discuss policy
issues, but they must label their discussion of policy issues
as their own opinion, and not the agency's opinion, because
executive agencies do not engage in policy debates. I do not do
that, and they may not, as well. We will not tolerate any
altering of scientific communications for someone's notion of
political correctness. That will not be done. Scientists or
engineers who are requested to be interviewed by news media may
accept the request, or they may decline; they're not forced to
do an interview that they do not wish to do, but they may do
one, if they choose. Because relationships with the news media
are an art form of a particular nature, we recommend that they
do such interviews with representatives of NASA Public Affairs.
But we do not require it.
I think those are the broad outlines of the policy. It's
one of the absolute maximum in openness, with that as my
clearly expressed intent. There is an adjudication mechanism
for disputes. I think you will appreciate that not every
scientist who wishes to issue a press release concerning his
work necessarily need be accommodated by the agency, but there
is an adjudication mechanism.
Senator Bill Nelson. Is it possible for an old-fashioned
July 4th celebration with the launch of the Space Shuttle?
Dr. Griffin. That could occur, sir. The opening of the
window is July 1, and we're trying for the opening of the
window. So, let's hope that we're in flight to celebrate on
July 4th with a clean, successful Shuttle flight.
Senator Bill Nelson. Godspeed.
Dr. Griffin. Thank you, sir.
Senator Hutchison. I'll be there.
Dr. Griffin. I would hope that both of you could be there.
I will be there.
Senator Bill Nelson. We will.
Senator Hutchison. We will. Thank you very much. We
appreciate very much your coming. I'm very pleased with the
progress you're making, and look forward to many more months of
that kind of progress.
Thank you.
Dr. Griffin. Well, Senator Hutchison and Senator Nelson you
are, of course, key members of my oversight committee, but you
are also among the strongest allies that I have in this body,
and I appreciate your support.
Thank you.
Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
Our meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Hon. Dr. Michael D. Griffin
Budget
Question 1. As you know, there are concerns about both the
distribution of funds within the current NASA budget request for Fiscal
Year 2007, and the fact that the total is dramatically less than the
amount authorized. Regarding the outyear funding levels for Fiscal Year
2008 and beyond, are there areas of the budget that you believe should
be given particular attention in those outyears?
Answer. The five-year budget plan included in the President's
Fiscal Year 2007 budget request for NASA provides the level of funding
necessary to meet the priorities of both the President and the
Congress. Outyear funding levels are essential to all areas of NASA,
and we carefully sought to balance our budget request not just in
Fiscal Year 2007 but in the outyears as well. We must maintain that
necessary balance by maintaining the proposed funding levels for all of
NASA's mission directorates.
Question 2. Are you concerned that the many difficult choices you
have had to make within the current funding levels and in the proposed
Fiscal Year 2007 funding profile will erode important elements of the
scientific and political constituency that is so important to sustain
the public commitment to space exploration? If so, what is your message
to those constituencies that are expressing their unhappiness with the
budget choices?
Answer. With limited resources, NASA made some difficult decisions.
Leadership means setting priorities of time, energy, and resources, and
NASA has tried to make these decisions with the best available facts
and analysis. The plain fact is that NASA simply cannot afford to do
everything that our many constituencies would like the Agency to do. We
must set priorities, and we must adjust our spending to match those
priorities.
NASA needed to reallocate budgeted funds from the Science and
Exploration budget projections for Fiscal Year 2007-2011 in order to
ensure that enough funds were available to properly support the Space
Shuttle and the ISS, while avoiding delays in development of the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV) that could increase risk and overall costs
and lead to even more delays in pursuing the Nation's vision. Such
delays in the CEV are strategically more damaging to our Nation's space
program than delays to affected science missions. Furthermore, NASA
cannot afford the costs of starting some new science missions at this
time. It is important to know that NASA is simply delaying missions,
not abandoning them.
NASA will work closely with our stakeholders in Congress and the
scientific community to make sure they understand our rationale. Some
of our stakeholders will not agree with our position, but it is
important for everyone to understand the rationale.
Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)
Question 3. The Subcommittee is aware of trade studies and other
assessments going on which might alter the requirements and
specifications for the Crew Exploration Vehicle, as well as the Crew
Launch Vehicle. Can you describe the status of those studies, and their
possible impact on the procurement process for the CEV?
Answer. NASA continues to refine our initial system architecture
based on the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) to provide
the highest probability for cost and performance effectiveness. The
ESAS was the first in a series of design cycles. We have completed
additional design cycles focusing on further trade assessments. At the
conclusion of each design cycle, multiple studies are evaluated and
result in modifications to our current design. The overall results of
these design iterations have been incorporated into the Constellation
system requirements and subsequently down into CEV Request for
Proposals (RFP) released last January.
NASA has received and is now evaluating these proposals for a
selection in September of this year. The two contractors selected under
Phase I of this procurement are continuing to refine their design
concepts. Contract actions on long-lead hardware for Crew Launch
Vehicle (CLV) components, such as the first stage and the upperstage
engine (J-2X), are in progress. In addition, we still plan to release
an RFP for an upperstage production partner early in CY 2007. We also
will continue to iterate on, and refine, the CEV/CLV design; and the
final requirements will be baselined at System Requirements Review
(SRR), later this summer. The refinement of the design concepts, cost,
and schedule estimates will continue through the formulation phase of
the projects, and will be baselined in the same timeframe as the
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) in the Fall of 2008.
Question 4. Last year, and in subsequent statements, you have
indicated that the key ingredient for accelerating development of the
CEV, within the architecture you have adopted, is funding. Is that
still your view, or are you seeing more technical challenges arise as
you move closer to identifying actual design requirements?
Answer. Constellation Systems has identified several challenges,
both technical and programmatic, to the successful implementation of
the Vision and currently is working mitigation strategies. As the
architecture and program proceed through formulation, we expect these
mitigation strategies to be developed more fully.
Within the CEV and CLV programs, the primary technical challenge to
supporting potential CEV launch dates earlier than 2014, according to
our Risk Management Plan, is developing and integrating of the upper-
stage engine. The J-2X engine development is well underway, but there
are technical challenges in the design, fabrication, and test of the
modifications of this engine. These challenges can be overcome with a
disciplined and aggressive engine development effort that focuses on
rigorous testing. While development of the J-2X is a challenge, the
derivative J-2S engine has a long heritage at NASA. The J-2S was
scheduled to fly on later Apollo missions before the Moon program was
canceled, and the more recent X-33 had been successfully testing an
engine based on the J-2S powerpack (turbo machine, gas generator, etc).
Our primary funding challenge is ensuring that we receive the
President's Budget request for Constellation. Any reductions in funding
could cause substantial schedule delays. Retaining our year-to-year
carryover intact in order to ameliorate the non-optimal phasing will be
key to our strategy to maximize the probability of program success. We
believe that we can reach the milestone of launching the CEV by 2014.
We face a schedule challenge in attempting to launch the CEV before
2014.
It is difficult to say which is the greater challenge--technical
performance or cost. Each one has a direct correlation with the other.
All things considered, the cost profile remains the greater issue for
the program. Currently, we are including funding for long lead and
critical path items to protect options for a launch before 2014.
Question 5. What is your best estimate today, based on available
resources now and those you can expect over the next 5 years, for
initial operations of the CEV?
Answer. The requirements that drive the architecture will be
baselined at a System Requirements Review, later this summer. Part of
the analysis of these requirements will include an assessment as to
whether these changes in design will affect the schedule. Until then,
we continue to support the first flight of CEV as early as possible,
but no later than 2014.
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Demonstration
Program
Question 6. The NASA Authorization Act endorses and encourages the
private sector involvement in space station crew and cargo support.
Among steps being taken to enable that involvement is the Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) demonstration program. Can you
provide the Subcommittee with the status of this program, the basis
used for selection of competitors, and the planned level of funding
through 2010 for this program?
Answer. NASA appreciates the substantial capabilities that exist in
the commercial space sector and the extent to which such capabilities
augment NASA's own unique competencies. On January 18, 2006, NASA
released the Space Act Announcement for Phase I of the Commercial Crew/
Cargo Project. The announcement solicited proposals from industry for
Earth-to-orbit spaceflight demonstrations of the following
capabilities:
Capability A: External cargo delivery and disposal,
Capability B: Internal cargo delivery and disposal,
Capability C: Internal cargo delivery, and
Capability D: Crew transportation.
Participants were encouraged to propose a system solution targeting
any of the capabilities individually or propose a system that satisfies
multiple capabilities. NASA will evaluate the participants' proposal as
it relates to their business plan, technical approach, and financial
proposal as part of a tradeoff analysis. The purpose of this tradeoff
analysis is to select a portfolio of approaches that best meets the
objectives of the COTS program. Many companies have expressed interest
in the Commercial Crew/Cargo Project, and we are diligently reviewing
the proposals in accordance with NASA's evaluation criteria.
In late August, NASA hopes to enter into funded Space Act
Agreements with one or more U.S. companies to develop and demonstrate
the vehicles, systems, and operations to support transportation for a
human space facility like the International Space Station (ISS). The
budget for this program totals $520 million through 2010.
The COTS program, along with the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate (ESMD) Centennial Challenges Program, are ways that NASA is
encouraging innovation in the private sector to help develop future
space capabilities. Such programs, providing capabilities and
technologies, will support U.S. competitiveness in the vital arena of
space transportation.
Space Shuttle
Question 7. As more time passes between the first and the second
Return-to-Flight test flights, there is increasing concern about the
ability to meet the flight rate needed to complete the International
Space Station before the planned retirement of the Space Shuttle. What
is your confidence level that it can be done?
Answer. NASA currently is planning to fly sixteen Shuttle missions
to complete the International Space Station prior to 2010, with one
additional Hubble Servicing flight. Under this manifest, the flight
rate will be 2, 4,5, 5, 1 for the next 5 years, beginning with the STS-
121 mission, planned to launch in July 2006. NASA engineers have worked
diligently to address the foam liberation issues experienced on STS-
114, including removing the Protuberance Air Load (PAL) ramp, and the
Agency is confident that this flight rate is achievable in a safe and
successful manner. The Program can accommodate some additional delays
and still complete ISS assembly prior to the Shuttle retirement in
2010. Should any large-scale delay occur, NASA will confer with the
International Partners on a joint course of action.
Question 8. What is the status of plans, if any, to retire the
Orbiter Atlantis, rather than put it through its scheduled major
modifications procedure? When is that process scheduled to begin, how
long would it be expected to take, and what are your current plans
regarding it?
Answer. Because Atlantis is in need of an Orbiter Major
Modification (OMM) per Shuttle program requirements after its next five
flights, and because that OMM would not be completed in sufficient time
to be available for flight before September 30, 2010, NASA will remove
Atlantis from the fleet in Fiscal Year 2008. At this time, no decision
has been made as to the final disposition of Atlantis or any of the
Space Shuttle orbiters. NASA's primary focus is ensuring that the Space
Shuttle safely and successfully completes its mission--completing its
role in assembly of the International Space Station (ISS) by the end of
Fiscal Year 2010.
Question 9. The mothballing of Atlantis would, of course, mean the
availability of only two Orbiters for completion of the Shuttle
manifest remaining at that time. How confident are you that it will be
possible to complete that manifest under those circumstances?
Answer. Currently, NASA is operating with the availability of two
Orbiters--Discovery and Atlantis, while Endeavor is in the Orbiter
Processing Facility for an OMM. The Agency is confident that manifest
is achievable in a safe and successful manner with the use of two
orbiters.
Question 10. Your very valid usual answer when asked when the
Shuttle will fly again is that ``we will fly when we are ready,''
meaning you do not want to be schedule-driven, but make launch
decisions based on all steps necessary being completed. Why not apply
the same reasoning to the question of when you will stop flying the
space shuttle, and say, ``When it has fulfilled its mission.''
Answer. The Vision for Space Exploration directed the retirement of
the Space Shuttle by the end of Fiscal Year 2010. NASA will complete
assembly of the International Space Station by 2010, at which point the
Space Shuttle will be retired. The Agency is confident that assembly
can be completed in the planned number of missions. NASA has a
carefully planned flight manifest that provides for completion of ISS
assembly in the sixteen Shuttle missions that will occur prior to
Shuttle retirement in 2010. Any delay in Shuttle retirement would delay
the introduction of the CEV as resources that would have been directed
to exploration would need to be directed back to supporting the
Shuttle.
Question 11. The President's Vision directed the retirement of the
Space Shuttle in 2010. But, he also said that the next step in the
Vision is to complete the International Space Station. Does it make
sense to say we will complete the Space Station, and then say we will
stop flying the Shuttle in 2010, whether the space station is completed
or not?
Answer. The Agency is confident that assembly can be completed in
the planned number of missions. NASA has a carefully planned flight
manifest that provides for completion of ISS assembly in the sixteen
Shuttle missions that will occur prior to Shuttle retirement in 2010.
The Shuttle budget also is sufficient to support two contingency
logistics Shuttle flights to the ISS in Fiscal Year 2010. If commercial
services are not available, these could be flown to pre-position spares
if the flights are deemed to be cost-effective and can be safely flown
without jeopardizing the Shuttle's 2010 retirement date.
International Space Station
Question 12. The current plan, as reflected in the budget request,
is to fly sixteen missions to complete and outfit the International
Space Station (ISS). That means that at least two logistics missions
have been reduced, and perhaps more. Primarily, those missions were to
have been used to fly Orbital Replacement Units (ORU's) to be attached
to the Station as spares for major systems too large to be launched on
expendable launch vehicles. Is that a correct statement? If so, can you
describe what those ORU's are, what is their stage of development and
related cost, and what options, if any, are being considered to
eventually find a means of taking them to the Space Station?
Answer. ISS spares were designed to be carried aboard the Space
Shuttle. Other ISS cargo delivery vehicles are available for providing
some spares to ISS; however, the Shuttle is the most capable of the
delivery vehicles. Capability to modify the Japanese cargo transfer
vehicle and critical spare flight support equipment to accommodate the
critical spares is under assessment. The two contingency Shuttle
flights are currently carried as placeholders for the delivery of
utilization payloads and pre-positioned spares in the event that
commercial services that can accommodate the spares are not available
at the time of Shuttle retirement and if the flights are deemed to be
cost-effective and can be safely flown without jeopardizing the
Shuttle's 2010 retirement date. The need for these contingency flights
will be continually assessed based on hardware failures and the sparing
needs of ISS.
The following represents some of the large spares that have
completed development and are ready for launch: external heat rejection
system pump module assemblies (PMA) (2 units), fluid hose rotary
coupler (FHRC), and nitrogen tank assembly (NTA), the control moment
gyroscope (CMG) for non-propulsive attitude control, the special
purpose dexterous manipulator (SPDM/``Dextre'') spare arm, Mobile
Transporter/Trailing Umbilical System Reel Assembly (MT/TUS RA), and
linear drive unit (LDU) to support robotic maintenance, a large Space
to Ground antenna (SGANT), a high pressure oxygen gas tank, 9
electrical power components including 6 batteries.
Question 13. What is the current status of the launch plans for the
modules of our international partners to be delivered to the ISS? Are
our partners satisfied with the current plans to meet our obligations
to them regarding the ISS?
Answer. The European Columbus Module is scheduled to be launched on
the seventh Shuttle mission to the ISS after STS-121 (ULF1.1), and was
recently delivered to the Space Station Processing Facility at Kennedy
Space Center. The components of the Japanese Experiment Module (JEM)
are currently planned to be launched on the eighth, ninth, and twelfth
Shuttle missions. The Canadian built Special Purpose Dexterous
Manipulator is planned to be launched on the eighth Shuttle mission.
The Agency is in close contact with our international partners
regarding overall assembly completion and the status of their modules,
and they are satisfied with our current plans. The heads of the five
partner space agencies met in March 2006 and endorsed this plan. We
will continue this close cooperation through the life of the ISS.
Question 14. Besides launching their modules to the ISS, what are
our other commitments to our international partners with regard to ISS?
(Operations, Research, Crew Time, etc.)
Answer. Under the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between NASA
and each of the International Partners, each Partner will receive
rights to operate experiments on the ISS and to provide astronauts to
serve as Space Station crew. They receive or retain rights to space for
their experiments, resources such as power and crew time to conduct
their experiments, and rights to purchase a commensurate share of
transportation and communications services to support their research.
They also have obligations to bear the costs of developing, maintaining
and (in the case of Russia's Multi-purpose Laboratory Module and
Research Module) launching the elements and systems they provide and
share in the ongoing operations costs of the ISS. NASA has, in addition
to its generic partner obligations, special roles reflecting its lead
partner status such as overall responsibilities for systems engineering
and integration, management and safety and mission assurance. NASA also
has specific obligations to provide assembly launches to other partners
as detailed in the individual MOUs. One example is the obligation to
launch the European and Japanese laboratories.
Question 15. As you know, the Authorization bill we enacted into
law requires that 15 percent of the total ISS research budget be
allocated to research that is not directly related to the Vision for
Exploration. The purpose for that is to keep, as much of the scientific
expertise and experiment equipment available for a time when more
research opportunities can be made available for those science
disciplines, hopefully through the vehicle of the National Laboratory,
which the bill also designated the ISS to be. Can you provide the
Subcommittee with the status of NASA's response to that requirement?
Answer. The 15 percent research selection pool included all
fundamental, non-exploration research in HSRT prior to the ESAS
research and technology review. Selection pool topics included but were
not limited to animal and plant research, basic fluid physics,
combustion research, cellular biotechnology, and cellular research. The
primary focus was to maximize ISS research to the greatest extent
possible, taking into account resource limitations such as upmass/
downmass and crew time. Free Flyer investigations will encourage
multidiscipline research and promote international collaboration.
Ground-based research will be selected to foster U.S. scientific
expertise and research capability in microgravity research. All
investigations have been or will be peer-reviewed.
The 15 percent non-exploration allocation includes funding for
renewals and extensions of grants in compliance with Congressional
direction: Ground research, ISS research, Free Flyer research, and
Multiuser User System Support (MUSS). Ground-based research includes
fundamental grants ending in FY06, and any ground research supporting
ISS flight and Free Flyer experiments.
In the Free Flyer area, ESMD is continuing its collaboration with
the Russians through completion of the FOTON M2 data review and future
M3 mission. The FOTON M3 mission will include both life and physical
science experiments. In addition, ESMD is strongly considering a
domestic free flyer for life and physical science experiments, which
may include commercial entities. This domestic free flyer activity is
currently under formulation.
To advance non-exploration research on ISS, NASA selected several
payloads to fly on the STS-121 flight: TROPI plant biology experiment,
FIT fruit fly immunology experiment, MICROBE, and POEMS microbiology
experiments. In addition, other physical science experiments have been
identified, but have not yet been manifested. It is anticipated that
these physical science payloads will be manifested once the future
Shuttle flight schedule is known.
In addition, the MUSS will support the non-exploration payloads.
Responsibilities of the MUSS include developing a manifest, integration
of payloads and facility class racks, crew training, planning increment
operations, testing payloads prior to flight, payload operations while
on-orbit, and return of the payload to Earth.
Interagency Cooperation/Collaboration
Question 16. The Subcommittee has stressed the importance of
seeking and establishing new and expanded partnerships and cooperative
relationships between NASA and other Federal agencies, such as the
National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National
Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense. Can you tell us
the status of those efforts? Where do you believe you are likely to
have the greatest success in achieving those relationships?
Answer. NASA shares the view that collaboration with other Federal
agencies can yield important benefits, and is committed to pursuing
cooperation with other Federal agencies wherever it may be mutually
beneficial. NASA already has well-established partnerships with a host
of Federal agencies, including those highlighted, for a wide variety of
activities including technology development, basic and applied
research, and operational program support. NASA is continually seeking
new opportunities to enhance its interagency relationships through a
variety of mechanisms. In the case of the Department of Defense (DOD),
the NASA Administrator meets on a regular basis with his DOD
counterparts in the Space Partnership Council. This Council was
established to explore and assess collaborative opportunities and
activities to advance our Nation's civil and national security space
objectives. Each of NASA's interagency partnerships helps the Agency to
synergize scarce resources, avoid costly duplication of effort, and
achieve in many cases much more than we could independently for the
benefit of science, exploration, and our Nation.
International Cooperation
Question 17. The Vision for Space Exploration underscores the
importance of maintaining the U.S. commitment to our international
partners in the ISS. It also clearly states, as does the NASA
Authorization Act of 2005, that international cooperation should be an
essential element of our future exploration activities. What steps are
being taken now to pursue that cooperation? In what areas of future
activity do you believe that is desirable, necessary, and possible?
Answer. As directed by the President, NASA is pursuing
opportunities for international participation in the Vision for Space
Exploration. In addition to numerous bilateral and multilateral
discussions about areas of potential mutual interest for cooperation on
the Vision, NASA hosted two international workshops, in November 2004
and March 2005, that included representatives from a number of
international space agencies and focused on potential international
participation in the Vision. In addition, in late April 2006, NASA
hosted 13 international space agencies at a NASA-hosted Exploration
Strategy Workshop in Washington. This four-day workshop was the first
in a series of activities planned for 2006 focusing on defining a
strategy for lunar exploration, including the role of the moon as a
stepping stone to Mars and other destinations. A recent example of the
tangible results from these discussions is the Memoranda of
Understanding signed between NASA and the Indian Space Research
Organization on May 9, 2006, for the flight of two NASA-provided
instruments aboard India's planned lunar mission Chandrayaan-1 and
ongoing discussions with Russia and Japan regarding cooperation on
upcoming lunar missions.
NASA has indicated to its international partners that it has
limited interest in international involvement in NASA's ongoing
development of a new U.S. capability for assured access to space. NASA
has indicated, however, that it is very interested in potential
discussions on cooperation in areas such as: habitats, rovers, power
and logistics, science and in-situ resource utilization equipment, data
sharing and communications, lunar robotic pre-cursor missions, and
enhanced ISS re-supply. NASA has also indicated that it is prepared to
discuss other areas of interest on a case-by-case basis.
Question 18. From your past work in defense-related activities, you
are familiar with the notion of ``linkage'' in our relations with
foreign governments. It seems obvious that many nations will, in part,
base their decisions on future cooperation with the U.S. on their
experience with regard to past and current commitments. Two current
projects in which the U.S. has made international commitments are
currently being reviewed and there appears to be some chance that the
U.S. may back away from its commitments, which would leave a number of
international participants in those projects in a difficult position.
These are the SOFIA project, the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared
Astronomy, in which the German Aerospace Center is heavily involved,
and the AMS, or Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, in which 16 other nations
are participating. Can you discuss these two projects and the degree to
which international commitments should be a factor in decisions
regarding their future?
Answer. SOFIA is a cooperative project conducted by NASA and the
German Aerospace Center (DLR) to develop an airborne observatory. The
AMS program is a Department of Energy-led collaborative initiative
composed of a 16-nation international science team for development of
the AMS experiment. NASA's role in this program, through DOE, was to
provide integration and launch of the AMS experiment to ISS. For both
of these projects, and for any effort involving international
agreements, commitments to our partners are one of many factors that
are considered when NASA makes programmatic decisions. The degree to
which these commitments are weighed relative to other considerations,
such as cost, schedule, technical, and safety factors, depends upon the
specific project and the issues it faces. In the case of SOFIA, the
NASA and DLR collaboration is formalized under a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). NASA, with participation from DLR, recently
completed a review of the SOFIA project due to continuing cost overruns
and schedule delays. With DLR's participation, NASA has recently
established a technically viable plan to proceed with the development
of the SOFIA aircraft, subject to the identification of appropriate
funding offsets. NASA's participation in the AMS program had been
accomplished though an MOU between NASA and DOE that expired in
September 2005. Under that MOU, DOE was responsible for all of the
international aspects associated with the AMS program's implementation.
Although NASA's MOU with DOE has expired, NASA has indicted to DOE that
it will continue to explore potential alternatives to launch of the AMS
program, subject to an assessment by the National Academy of Sciences
of relative priorities for astronomy and physics missions not yet
confirmed for flight.
Question 19. You have been invited to visit China and meet with
their space program officials, and have indicated your interest and
willingness in doing that. Can you describe what your objectives would
be in such a visit? Do you have a sense of where there might be
potential for cooperation with China in the Vision for Exploration or
in other areas of NASA activity?
Answer. The NASA Administrator has accepted an invitation from the
China National Space Administration (CNSA) to visit China. The
Administrator is looking forward to the trip to get acquainted with
colleagues in China and to better understand Chinese civil space
interests and capabilities. Specific areas of interest to NASA include
Earth science and lunar exploration, particularly potential sharing of
data from robotic missions.
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and Science, Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics Excellence (STEM)
Question 20. As you know, NASA has always been in the forefront of
this Nation's advancement in technology. The President did not include
NASA in the focused effort of the American Competitiveness Initiative,
but Dr. Marburger has made it clear that does not reflect in any way a
belief that NASA no longer plays an important role in enhancing our
Nation's competitiveness. Can you describe ways in which you believe
NASA will continue to make contributions to innovation and
competitiveness now and in the future?
Answer. Since its inception, NASA has served as a pioneer to the
expansion of technological and medical breakthroughs, scientific
research, and commercial development of space. NASA expects to remain
on the forefront of innovation and competitiveness enhancements as we
develop and launch new, innovative missions to the Moon and beyond as
part of the Nation's Vision for Space Exploration. This will be
primarily accomplished by continuing to engage industry and academia
through a myriad of research and educational opportunities.
Through its Innovative Partnerships Program, NASA licenses
technologies to U.S. firms for commercial application and quality-of-
life benefits. NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program also facilitates
dual-use technology development partnering with U.S. industry for the
purposes of producing technology for NASA mission use at less cost to
NASA. In the process, U.S. partner entities benefit from the joint
development of cutting-edge technology having strong likelihood of
commercial application. NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program thereby
further serves to strengthen U.S. industry's competitive position in
international markets.
Also located within NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program are the
Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology
Transfer (STTR) program elements, which have the primary purpose of
providing the U.S. high technology small business sector with an
opportunity to provide innovative technology for NASA's missions.
Accordingly, the Innovative Partnerships Program is serving to produce
technology that improves U.S. industry's competitive position now and
into the future.
Additionally, NASA is a key participant in the Federal High
Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program. As a key
participant of the Federal Program, the primary purpose of NASA's HPCC
Program is to extend U.S. technological leadership in high-performance
computing and communications for the benefit of NASA stakeholders: the
U.S. aeronautics, Earth and space sciences, and spaceborne research
communities. As international competition intensifies and as scientists
push back the frontiers of knowledge, leading-edge computational
science is more important than ever.
The NASA Program is structured to contribute to broad Federal
efforts while addressing agency-specific computational problems called
Grand Challenges. NASA provides resources to develop tools to solve
Grand Challenges in four HPCC project areas; the NASA Research and
Education Network (NREN) supports the four projects. NASA will also
continue the Agency's tradition of investing in the Nation's education
programs and supporting the country's educators who play a key role in
preparing, inspiring, exciting, encouraging, and nurturing the young
minds of today who will manage and lead the Nation's laboratories and
research centers of tomorrow.
In 2006 and beyond, NASA will continue to pursue three major
education goals, which will continue to make contributions to
innovation and competitiveness now and in the future:
Strengthen NASA and the Nation's future workforce--NASA will
identify and develop the critical skills and capabilities
needed to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration. To help
meet this demand, NASA will continue contributing to the
development of the Nation's science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) workforce of the future through a
diverse portfolio of education initiatives that target
America's students at all levels, especially those in
traditionally underserved and underrepresented communities.
Attract and retain students in STEM disciplines--To compete
effectively for the minds, imaginations, and career ambitions
of America's young people, NASA will focus on engaging and
retaining students in STEM education programs to encourage
their pursuit of educational disciplines critical to NASA's
future engineering, scientific, and technical missions.
Engage Americans in NASA's mission--NASA will build
strategic partnerships and linkages between STEM formal and
informal education providers. Through hands-on, interactive,
educational activities, NASA will engage students, educators,
families, the general public, and all Agency stakeholders to
increase Americans' science and technology literacy.
NASA's Aeronautics Program has recently been restructured with the
aim of providing long-term stability and focus on high-quality,
innovative research that produces ideas, capabilities, and technologies
that are critical enablers for the Nation's long-term technological
leadership. Toward this end, the Aeronautics Program has been refocused
away from evolutionary research and technology development and toward
more revolutionary research that will answer fundamental aeronautics
questions that will benefit the broad aeronautics community in
academia, industry, and government. The technologies developed by NASA
under this strategy will help to secure the U.S. leadership role in
global aviation and greatly enhance U.S. competitiveness in the future.
NASA's ESMD also promotes innovation and competitiveness. A major
step in spurring the development of a space economy is already underway
through the establishment of NASA's Commercial Crew and Cargo program.
The objectives of the Commercial Crew and Cargo program are as follows:
Implement U.S. space exploration policy with an investment
to stimulate commercial enterprises in space.
Facilitate U.S. private industry demonstration of cargo and
crew space transportation capabilities with the goal of
achieving reliable, cost effective access to low-Earth orbit.
Create a market environment in which commercial space
transportation services are available to government and private
sector customers.
Procure commercial services for NASA cargo and crew
transportation needs.
ESMD has established the ``Centennial Challenges'' program to
conduct prize competitions that support the Vision for Space
Exploration and ongoing NASA programs. Specifically, the Centennial
Challenges program conducts prize competitions that stimulate
innovation in basic and applied research, technology development, and
prototype demonstration that have the potential for application to the
performance of the space and aeronautical activities of NASA. These two
ESMD programs, providing capabilities and technologies, will support
U.S. competitiveness in the vital arena of space transportation.
Question 21. Can you provide a similar response in the area of
enhancing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics excellence
in schools and industry?
Answer. NASA shares the concerns of the Nation regarding the
quality of math, science, and technology education policy and practices
that have led to a reported decline of Americans that are
scientifically and technologically trained to enter the NASA and the
U.S. aerospace workforce.
As noted previously, NASA will continue the Agency's tradition of
investing in the Nation's education programs and supporting the
country's educators. To that end NASA education efforts are designed
to: improve the understanding and appreciation of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics disciplines, to enhance scientific and
technological literacy, mathematical competence, problem-solving
skills, and desire to learn; provide educators with unique teaching
tools, compelling teaching experiences, and world-class research
experiences; inspire students through hands-on activities to pursue
careers in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology; and,
build a diverse pipeline of science and engineering talent to serve in
the coming decades and continue America's pre-eminence in space and
aeronautics research and development.
NASA has a number of innovative projects that use science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics resources (content, people,
and facilities) to inspire the next generation of explorers and
innovators through the Vision for Space Exploration. Among the current
Education projects are NASA Educator Astronaut, NASA Explorer Schools,
Aerospace Education Services Program, National Space Grant Scholarship
& Fellowship, Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research,
Graduate Student Research Program, Undergraduate Student Research
Program, and Curriculum Improvement Partnership Awards.
NASA's Educator Astronaut project has helped to revolutionize
education by providing new content, advanced technological tools, and
other educational services such as direct participation in space
research and interaction with NASA scientists, engineers, and
astronauts. To date, the project has trained the top tier of Educator
Astronaut applicants, called the Network of Educator Astronaut Teachers
(180), to perform as NASA Education advocates by engaging their schools
and communities across the country in NASA education activities and
informing them of NASA resources.
NASA's Explorer Schools (NES) project establishes a three-year
partnership between NASA and school teams, consisting of teachers and
education administrators from diverse communities across the country.
Focusing on underserved populations, NES joins educators, students, and
families in sustained involvement with NASA's research, discoveries,
and missions. The project is designed for education communities at the
4-9 grade levels to help middle schools improve teaching and learning
in science, technology, engineering, and math through significant
structural techniques such as professional development, stipends,
grants, and curricular supports based on NASA's resources. An integral
part of the NES is availability of the NASA Digital Learning Network
(DLN) that provides NASA people, technology, facilities, programs, and
resources to deliver learning opportunities via videoconferences to
teachers and students.
The Aerospace Education Services Program serves the elementary and
secondary education community by providing classroom demonstrations,
faculty workshops, parent training, in-service training for teachers,
and identification of appropriate classroom resources. NASA uses former
teachers who are well trained and well equipped in STEM content.
The Space Grant, a national network of colleges and universities,
works to expand opportunities for Americans to understand and
participate in NASA's aeronautics and space programs by supporting and
enhancing science and engineering education, research, and public
outreach programs.
The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research develops
academic research enterprises that are long term, self-sustaining, and
nationally competitive by supporting states with modest research
infrastructure to become more competitive in attracting research
funding. Funding is awarded to lead academic institutions in twenty
different states to foster a STEM relationship with industries for
research and development opportunities.
The Graduate Student Researchers Program cultivates research ties
to the academic community to help meet the continuing needs of the
Nation's aeronautics and space effort by increasing the number of
highly trained scientists and engineers in aeronautics and space-
related disciplines, and broadens the base of students pursuing
advanced degrees in science, mathematics, and engineering. The program
awards fellowships for graduate study leading to masters or doctoral
degrees in the fields of science, mathematics, and engineering related
to NASA research and development.
The Undergraduate Student Researchers Program attracts
undergraduate students from the widest array of backgrounds, who are
fully representative of America's racial, ethnic, and cultural
diversity; and provides them with hands-on, challenging research
experiences that stimulate continued student interest in the fields/
disciplines aligned with NASA's research and development mission.
The Curriculum Improvement Partnership Award, a three-year
undergraduate curriculum improvement program for minority-serving
institutions (MSIs), including Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and
Universities, and other MSIs, emphasizes improvements that are directly
related to the NASA mission by infusing innovative learning experiences
in STEM into the curriculum.
Finally, NASA's Office of Education is continually and
collaboratively engaged with other Federal agencies, including the
Department of Education and the National Science Foundation.
Collaboration and coordination takes place in a number of fora. For
example, the Assistant Administrator for Education serves as NASA's
representative on the Subcommittee on Education and Workforce
Development, under the President's National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC) Committee on Science. The NASA Deputy Administrator is a
member of the Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) included in the
Reconciliation Act of 2006. Chaired by Secretary Spellings, the ACC
brings together senior administrators from each of the Federal agencies
that sponsor math and science education programs, including NASA, to
evaluate and coordinate these programs.
Question 22. Are there areas where NASA could do even more in each
of these areas if more resources were made available for it to do so?
Answer. NASA will continue its strong commitment to promoting
innovation, enhancing competitiveness, and inspiring the next
generation of explorers and innovators, but must do so within the
reality of balancing the many priorities within NASA and across the
Federal domestic programs. Application of any additional resources must
be considered within the context of our well-aligned programs that are
designed to achieve the Vision for Space Exploration and on-going
science and aeronautics research activities.
For example, within the education portfolio there is a delicate
balance within the pipeline of opportunities for NASA to inspire,
engage, educate, and employ our Nation's talented youth. The primary
goal remains attracting and maintaining a workforce that is
representative of the Nation's diversity and includes competencies that
NASA needs to deliver and sustain levels of high performance that the
Agency's challenging mission requires. As we implement the Vision we
must continually assess the strategy for deploying our resources, be
that for attracting students to the teaching profession; providing pre-
and in-service teacher training; providing leading-edge research
opportunities for faculty and students that compliment NASA's research;
developing curricula that infuses innovative learning experiences into
the curriculum; or, supporting informal learning across government,
industries, and professional organizations.